Search

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment with nifedipine compared with atosiban in women with threatened preterm birth., Design: An economic analysis alongside a randomised clinical trial (the APOSTEL III study)., Setting: Obstetric departments of 12 tertiary hospitals and seven secondary hospitals in the Netherlands and Belgium., Population: Women with threatened preterm birth between 25 and 34 weeks of gestation, randomised for tocolysis with either nifedipine or atosiban., Methods: We performed an economic analysis from a societal perspective. We estimated costs from randomisation until discharge. Analyses for singleton and multiple pregnancies were performed separately. The robustness of our findings was evaluated in sensitivity analyses., Main Outcome Measures: Mean costs and differences were calculated per woman treated with nifedipine or atosiban. Health outcomes were expressed as the prevalence of a composite of adverse perinatal outcomes., Results: Mean costs per patients were significantly lower in the nifedipine group [singleton pregnancies: €34,897 versus €43,376, mean difference (MD) -€8479 [95% confidence interval (CI) -€14,327 to -€2016)]; multiple pregnancies: €90,248 versus €102,292, MD -€12,044 (95% CI -€21,607 to € -1671). There was a non-significantly higher death rate in the nifedipine group. The difference in costs was mainly driven by a lower neonatal intensive care unit admission (NICU) rate in the nifedipine group., Conclusion: Treatment with nifedipine in women with threatened preterm birth results in lower costs when compared with treatment with atosiban. However, the safety of nifedipine warrants further investigation., Tweetable Abstract: In women with threatened preterm birth, tocolysis using nifedipine results in lower costs when compared with atosiban., (© 2019 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Objective: To assess the costs of labour induction with oral misoprostol versus Foley catheter., Design: Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial., Setting: Obstetric departments of six tertiary and 23 secondary care hospitals in the Netherlands., Population: Women with a viable term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, intact membranes, an unfavourable cervix (Bishop score <6) without a previous caesarean section, were randomised for labour induction with oral misoprostol (n = 924) or Foley catheter (n = 921)., Methods: We performed economic analysis from a hospital perspective. We estimated direct medical costs associated with healthcare utilisation from randomisation until discharge. The robustness of our findings was evaluated in sensitivity analyses., Main Outcome Measures: Mean costs and differences were calculated per women induced with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter., Results: Mean costs per woman in the oral misoprostol group and Foley catheter group were €4470 versus €4158, respectively [mean difference €312, 95% confidence interval (CI) -€508 to €1063]. Multiple sensitivity analyses did not change these conclusions. However, if cervical ripening for low-risk pregnancies in the Foley catheter group was carried out in an outpatient setting, with admittance to labour ward only at start of active labour, the difference would be €4470 versus €3489, respectively (mean difference €981, 95% CI €225-1817)., Conclusions: Oral misoprostol and Foley catheter generate comparable costs. Cervical ripening outside labour ward with a Foley catheter could potentially save almost €1000 per woman., Tweetable Abstract: Oral misoprostol or Foley catheter for induction of labour generates comparable costs., (© 2017 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Objective: To assess the economic consequences of immediate delivery compared with expectant monitoring in women with preterm non-severe hypertensive disorders of pregnancy., Design: A cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial (HYPITAT-II)., Setting: Obstetric departments of seven academic hospitals and 44 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands., Population: Women diagnosed with non-severe hypertensive disorders of pregnancy between 34 0/7 and 37 0/7  weeks of gestation, randomly allocated to either immediate delivery or expectant monitoring., Methods: A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a healthcare perspective until final maternal and neonatal discharge., Main Outcome Measures: Health outcomes were expressed as the prevalence of respiratory distress syndrome, defined as the need for supplemental oxygen for >24 hours combined with radiographic findings typical for respiratory distress syndrome. Costs were estimated from a healthcare perspective until maternal and neonatal discharge., Results: The average costs of immediate delivery (n = 352) were €10 245 versus €9563 for expectant monitoring (n = 351), with an average difference of €682 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI -€618 to €2126). This 7% difference predominantly originated from the neonatal admissions, which were €5672 in the immediate delivery arm and €3929 in the expectant monitoring arm., Conclusion: In women with mild hypertensive disorders between 34 0/7 and 37 0/7  weeks of gestation, immediate delivery is more costly than expectant monitoring as a result of differences in neonatal admissions. These findings support expectant monitoring, as the clinical outcomes of the trial demonstrated that expectant monitoring reduced respiratory distress syndrome for a slightly increased risk of maternal complications., Tweetable Abstract: Expectant management in preterm hypertensive disorders is less costly compared with immediate delivery., (© 2016 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Objective: To evaluate whether in symptomatic women, the combination of quantitative fetal fibronectin (fFN) testing and cervical length (CL) improves the prediction of preterm delivery (PTD) within 7 days compared with qualitative fFN and CL., Design: Post hoc analysis of frozen fFN samples of a nationwide cohort study., Setting: Ten perinatal centres in the Netherlands., Population: Symptomatic women between 24 and 34 weeks of gestation., Methods: The risk of PTD <7 days was estimated in predefined CL and fFN strata. We used logistic regression to develop a model including quantitative fFN and CL, and one including qualitative fFN (threshold 50 ng/ml) and CL. We compared the models' capacity to identify women at low risk (<5%) for delivery within 7 days using a reclassification table., Main Outcome Measures: Spontaneous delivery within 7 days after study entry., Results: We studied 350 women, of whom 69 (20%) delivered within 7 days. The risk of PTD in <7 days ranged from 2% in the lowest fFN group (<10 ng/ml) to 71% in the highest group (>500 ng/ml). Multivariable logistic regression showed an increasing risk of PTD in <7 days with rising fFN concentration [10-49 ng/ml: odds ratio (OR) 1.3, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.23-7.0; 50-199 ng/ml: OR 3.2, 95% CI 0.79-13; 200-499 ng/ml: OR 9.0, 95% CI 2.3-35; >500 ng/ml: OR 39, 95% CI 9.4-164] and shortening of the CL (OR 0.86 per mm, 95% CI 0.82-0.90). Use of quantitative fFN instead of qualitative fFN resulted in reclassification of 18 (5%) women from high to low risk, of whom one (6%) woman delivered within 7 days., Conclusion: In symptomatic women, quantitative fFN testing does not improve the prediction of PTD within 7 days compared with qualitative fFN testing in combination with CL measurement in terms of reclassification from high to low (<5%) risk, but it adds value across the risk range., Tweetable Abstract: Quantitative fFN testing adds value to qualitative fFN testing with CL measurement in the prediction of PTD., (© 2015 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)