Advertisement

Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 8–11 | Cite as

Cost-effectiveness of periconceptional supplementation of folic acid

  • M.J. Postma
  • J. Londeman
  • M. Veenstra
  • L.T.W. de Jong-van den Berg
  • H.E.K. de Walle
Article

Abstract

Background: Supplementation of folic acid prior to and in the beginning of pregnancy may prevent neural tube defects (NTDs) in newborns – such as spina bifida – and possibly other congenital malformations.Objective: To estimate cost effectiveness of periconceptional supplementation of folic acid using pharmaco‐economic model calculation.Method: Probabilities for NTDs, risk reductions through periconceptional supplementation of folic acid and lifetime costs of care for children with spina bifida were estimated using Dutch registrations and international literature.Main outcome measure: Cost effectiveness was expressed in net costs per discounted life‐year gained. Cost effectiveness was calculated in the baseline and in sensitivity analysis.Results: Estimated cost effectiveness of periconceptional supplementation of folic acid amounts to NLG 3900(D1800) in the base case. In sensitivity analysis cost effectiveness mostly remains below NLG 10.000(D4500).Conclusion: Periconceptional supplementation of folic acid shows a favorable cost effectiveness. From pharmaco‐economic point of view this justifies further stimulation of folic‐acid supplementation prior to pregnancy. This can be done through targeted education by health‐care workers, such as pharmacists.

Cost effectiveness Folic acid Neural tube defects Pharmaco‐economics Prevention 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    GezondheidsRaad (GR). Risico's van foliumzuurverrijking (in Dutch). The Hague (Netherlands): GR; 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hernadez-Diaz S, Werler M, Walker A, Mitchell A. Folic acid antagonists during pregnancy and the risk of birth defects. New Engl J Med 2000;343:1608–14.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Staal-Schreinemakers AL, Vos-Niël JME, Begeer JH. Toekomstperspectieven voor kinderen met spina bifida aperta (in Dutch). Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1996;140:1268–72.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jong-van den Berg LTW de, Walle HEK de. Foliumzuur in de voeding? (in Dutch) Pharm Weekbl 2000;135:1810.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    MRC Vitamin Study Research Group. Prevention of neural tube defects: results of the Medical Research Council Vitamin Study. Lancet 1991;338:131–7.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Czeizel AE, Dudas I. Prevention of the first occurence of neural-tube defects by periconceptional vitamin supplementation. N Engl J Med 1992;327:1832–5.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Werler MM, Shapiro S, Mitchell AA. Periconceptional folic acid exposure and risk of occurent neural tube defects. J Am Med Ass 1993;269:1257–61.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    College voor Zorgverzekeringen (CvZ). Richtlijnen voor Farmacoeconomisch Onderzoek (in Dutch). Amstelveen (Netherlands): CvZ; 1999.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Doubilet P, Begg CB, Weinstein MC. Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis using Monte Carlo Simulation. Med Decis making 1985;5:157–77.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Walle HEK de, Jong-van den Berg LTW de, Cornel MC. Periconceptional folic acid intake in the Northern Netherlands. Lancet 1999;353:1187.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walle HEK de, Jong-van den Berg LTW de. Insufficient Folic Acid Intake in the Netherlands; what about the future? Teratology, in press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pal-de Bruin KM van der, Buitendijk SE, Hirasing RA, Ouden AL den. Geboorteprevalentie van neuralebuisdefecten voor en na campagne voor periconceptioneel foliumzuurgebruik (in Dutch). Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2000;144:1732–6.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    College voor Zorgverzekeringen. Farmacotherapeutisch kompas 2000/2001 (in Dutch). Utrecht (Netherlands): Roto Smeets; 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heineman MJ, Bleker OP, Evers JLH, Heintz APM (Red.) Obstetrie en Gynaecologie; de voortplanting van de mens (in Dutch). Maarssen (Netherlands): Elsevier/Bunge;1999.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Centers for Disease Control. Economic costs of births defects-United States, 1992. MMWR 1995;44:695-9.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). OECD Health Data 2000. Paris: OECD; 2000.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kelly AE, Haddix AC, Scanlon KS, Helmick CG, Mulinare J. Cost-effectiveness of Strategies to Prevent Neural Tube Defects. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, Weinstein MC, editors. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996:313–48.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Postma MJ, Kwik JJ, Rutten WJMJ, Brouwers JRBJ, Jong-van den Berg LTW de. Farmaco-economische richtlijnen en de praktijk van gezondheidseconomisch onderzoek (in Dutch). Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd, accepted.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reefhuis J, Samren EB, Diem MTh, Boonstra A, Hazebroek AAJM, Walle HEK de, et al. Tables 1981-1998, EUROCAT registration of congenital anomalies. Groningen (Netherlands): University of Groningen; 2000 (ISBN 90-367-1360-9).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Postma MJ, Bos JM, van Gennep M, Jager JC, Baltussen R, Sprenger MJW. Economic Evaluation of Influenza Vaccination; assessment for the Netherlands. PharmacoEconomics 1999;16(S1):33–40.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    De Jong-van den Berg LTW, Cornel MC, Tymstra T, Buitendijk SE. Folate prophylaxis in pregnancy. Lancet 1995;346:1227–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • M.J. Postma
    • 1
  • J. Londeman
    • 1
  • M. Veenstra
    • 1
  • L.T.W. de Jong-van den Berg
    • 1
  • H.E.K. de Walle
    • 2
  1. 1.Groningen University Institute for Drug Exploration /university of Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy (GUIDE/GRIP)GroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Medical SciencesUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations