Economic Evaluations of Thrombophilia Screening Prior to Prescribing Combined Oral Contraceptives: A Systematic and Critical Review

Erin Vernon, Bridget Hiedemann () and Bonnie H. Bowie
Additional contact information
Erin Vernon: Seattle University
Bridget Hiedemann: Seattle University
Bonnie H. Bowie: Seattle University

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2017, vol. 15, issue 5, No 5, 583-595

Abstract: Abstract Background Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) increase the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), particularly among women with inherited clotting disorders. The World Health Organization classifies combined hormonal contraception as an “unacceptable health risk” for women with thrombogenic mutations but advises against universal thrombophilia screening before prescribing COCs given the low prevalence of thrombophilia and high screening costs. Objective Through the lens of lifetime costs and benefits, this paper systematically and critically reviews all published economic evaluations of thrombophilia screening prior to prescribing COCs. Methods We searched relevant databases for economic evaluations of thrombophilia screening before prescribing COCs. After extracting the key study characteristics and economic variables, we evaluated each article using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) instruments. Results Seven economic evaluations of thrombophilia screening before prescribing COCs met our inclusion criteria. Only the two economic evaluations focusing exclusively on selective screening exceeded the 75-point threshold for high-quality economic studies based on the QHES instrument, whereas only one of these exceeded the 85% CHEERS threshold. Only three of the seven economic evaluations performed sensitivity analysis on key parameters. Most studies underestimated the benefits of thrombophilia screening by comparing one-time costs of genetic screening against benefits per person-year, thus implicitly assuming a 1-year duration of COC use, neglecting the long-term implications of VTE and/or neglecting the lifetime benefits of awareness of inherited thrombophilia. Conclusion Our review highlights the lack of methodologically rigorous economic evaluations of universal thrombophilia screening before prescribing COCs.

Keywords: Economic Evaluation; Thrombophilia; Combine Oral Contraceptive; Factor Versus Leiden; Selective Screening (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-017-0318-x Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-017-0318-x

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40258

DOI: 10.1007/s40258-017-0318-x

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson

More articles in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().