Search

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.)

Background: Labour is induced in 20-30% of all pregnancies. In women with an unfavourable cervix, both oral misoprostol and Foley catheter are equally effective compared with dinoprostone in establishing vaginal birth, but each has a better safety profile. We did a trial to directly compare oral misoprostol with Foley catheter alone., Methods: We did an open-label randomised non-inferiority trial in 29 hospitals in the Netherlands. Women with a term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, an unfavourable cervix, intact membranes, and without a previous caesarean section who were scheduled for induction of labour were randomly allocated to cervical ripening with 50 μg oral misoprostol once every 4 h or to a 30 mL transcervical Foley catheter. The primary outcome was a composite of asphyxia (pH ≤7·05 or 5-min Apgar score <7) or post-partum haemorrhage (≥1000 mL). The non-inferiority margin was 5%. The trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR3466., Findings: Between July, 2012, and October, 2013, we randomly assigned 932 women to oral misoprostol and 927 women to Foley catheter. The composite primary outcome occurred in 113 (12·2%) of 924 participants in the misoprostol group versus 106 (11·5%) of 921 in the Foley catheter group (adjusted relative risk 1·06, 90% CI 0·86-1·31). Caesarean section occurred in 155 (16·8%) women versus 185 (20·1%; relative risk 0·84, 95% CI 0·69-1·02, p=0·067). 27 adverse events were reported in the misoprostol group versus 25 in the Foley catheter group. None were directly related to the study procedure., Interpretation: In women with an unfavourable cervix at term, induction of labour with oral misoprostol and Foley catheter has similar safety and effectiveness., Funding: FondsNutsOhra., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Like many other research subjects in obstetrics, research on immediate delivery versus expectant monitoring for women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy faces certain challenges when it comes to interpretation and generalisation of the results; relatively rare outcomes are studied, in a clinically heterogeneous population, while the clinical practice in some countries has dictated that studies in term pregnancy were completed before earlier gestational ages could be studied. This has resulted in multiple smaller studies, some studying surrogate outcome measures, with different in- and exclusion criteria, and without enough power for reliable subgroup analyses. All this complicates the generation of definitive answers and implementation of the results into clinical practice. Performing multiple studies and subsequently pooling their results in a meta-analysis can be a way to overcome the difficulties of studying relatively rare outcomes and subgroups with enough power, as well as a solution to reach a final answer on questions involving an uncertain and possibly harmful intervention. However, in the case of the current studies on delivery versus expectant monitoring in women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, differences regarding eligibility criteria, outcome measures and subgroup definitions make it difficult to pool their results in an aggregate meta-analysis. Individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) has the potential to overcome these challenges, because it allows for flexibility regarding the choice of endpoints and standardisation of inclusion and exclusion criteria across studies. In addition, it has more statistical power for informative subgroup analyses. We therefore propose an IPDMA on immediate delivery versus expectant monitoring for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and advocate the use of IPDMA for research questions in obstetrics that face similar challenges., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is little evidence to guide the management of women with hypertensive disorders in late preterm pregnancy. We investigated the effect of immediate delivery versus expectant monitoring on maternal and neonatal outcomes in such women., Methods: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial, in seven academic hospitals and 44 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands. Women with non-severe hypertensive disorders of pregnancy between 34 and 37 weeks of gestation were randomly allocated to either induction of labour or caesarean section within 24 h (immediate delivery) or a strategy aimed at prolonging pregnancy until 37 weeks of gestation (expectant monitoring). The primary outcomes were a composite of adverse maternal outcomes (thromboembolic disease, pulmonary oedema, eclampsia, HELLP syndrome, placental abruption, or maternal death), and neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, both analysed by intention-to-treat. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR1792)., Findings: Between March 1, 2009, and Feb 21, 2013, 897 women were invited to participate, of whom 703 were enrolled and randomly assigned to immediate delivery (n=352) or expectant monitoring (n=351). The composite adverse maternal outcome occurred in four (1·1%) of 352 women allocated to immediate delivery versus 11 (3·1%) of 351 women allocated to expectant monitoring (relative risk [RR] 0·36, 95% CI 0·12-1·11; p=0·069). Respiratory distress syndrome was diagnosed in 20 (5·7%) of 352 neonates in the immediate delivery group versus six (1·7%) of 351 neonates in the expectant monitoring group (RR 3·3, 95% CI 1·4-8·2; p=0·005). No maternal or perinatal deaths occurred., Interpretation: For women with non-severe hypertensive disorders at 34-37 weeks of gestation, immediate delivery might reduce the already small risk of adverse maternal outcomes. However, it significantly increases the risk of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, therefore, routine immediate delivery does not seem justified and a strategy of expectant monitoring until the clinical situation deteriorates can be considered., Funding: ZonMw., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the economic consequences of labour induction with Foley catheter compared to prostaglandin E2 gel., Design: Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial., Setting: Obstetric departments of one university and 11 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands., Population: Women scheduled for labour induction with a singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation at term, intact membranes and an unfavourable cervix; and without previous caesarean section., Methods: Cost-effectiveness analysis from a hospital perspective., Main Outcome Measures: We estimated direct medical costs associated with healthcare utilisation from randomisation to 6 weeks postpartum. For caesarean section rate, and maternal and neonatal morbidity we calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, which represent the costs to prevent one of these adverse outcomes., Results: Mean costs per woman in the Foley catheter group (n = 411) and in the prostaglandin E₂ gel group (n = 408), were €3297 versus €3075, respectively, with an average difference of €222 (95% confidence interval -€157 to €633). In the Foley catheter group we observed higher costs due to longer labour ward occupation and less cost related to induction material and neonatal admissions. Foley catheter induction showed a comparable caesarean section rate compared with prostaglandin induction, therefore the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was not informative. Foley induction resulted in fewer neonatal admissions (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio €2708) and asphyxia/postpartum haemorrhage (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios €5257) compared with prostaglandin induction., Conclusions: Foley catheter and prostaglandin E2 labour induction generate comparable costs., (© 2013 The Authors BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology © 2013 RCOG.)

Background: Induction of labour is a common obstetric procedure. At present, different methods are used for induction of labour in women with an unfavourable cervix. Recently, we showed that in term women with an unfavorable cervix the use of a Foley catheter in comparison with vaginal Prostaglandin E2 gel, results in a comparable vaginal delivery rate. A meta-analysis on the subject indicated lower rates of hyperstimulation, and probably as a sequel fewer cases of postpartum haemorrhage. Misoprostol (PgE1) is another type of prostaglandin frequently used for labour induction, recommended by the international federation of gynaecology and obstetrics (FIGO). Misoprostol can be administered by vaginal, rectal and oral route. There is evidence that oral administration results in less asphyxia and hyperstimulation than vaginal administration. At present, valid comparisons between oral misoprostol and Foley catheter are lacking. Therefore, we propose a randomised controlled trial comparing Foley catheter to oral misoprostol in order to assess safety and cost-effectiveness., Methods/design: We plan a multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label clinical trial among term pregnant women with a vital singleton in cephalic presentation, unfavorable cervix, intact membranes and an indication for induction of labour. After informed consent, women will be randomly allocated by a webbased randomisation system to transcervical Foley catheter or oral misoprostol (50 mcg every 4 hours). The primary outcome will be a composite of complications of uterine hyperstimulation, i.e. post partum haemorrhage and asphyxia. Secondary outcomes are mode of delivery, maternal and neonatal morbidity, costs and women's preference. Serious adverse events such as severe maternal or neonatal morbitity or mortality will be monitored and reported to an independent data safety monitory board. With a sample size of 1860 women we will be able to demonstrate a 5% non-inferiority of the Foley catheter as compared to misoprostol for the composite outcome., Discussion: Worldwide, various methods are being used for labour induction. Results of the proposed trial will contribute to the answer which method of induction of labour is most safe, cost-effective, and patient friendly and will help to construct evidence based guidelines., Trial Registration: The Netherlands Trial Register NTR3466.

Background: Gestational hypertension (GH) and pre-eclampsia (PE) can result in severe complications such as eclampsia, placental abruption, syndrome of Hemolysis, Elevated Liver enzymes and Low Platelets (HELLP) and ultimately even neonatal or maternal death. We recently showed that in women with GH or mild PE at term induction of labour reduces both high risk situations for mothers as well as the caesarean section rate. In view of this knowledge, one can raise the question whether women with severe hypertension, pre-eclampsia or deterioration chronic hypertension between 34 and 37 weeks of gestation should be delivered or monitored expectantly. Induction of labour might prevent maternal complications. However, induction of labour in late pre-term pregnancy might increase neonatal morbidity and mortality compared with delivery at term., Methods/design: Pregnant women with severe gestational hypertension, mild pre-eclampsia or deteriorating chronic hypertension at a gestational age between 34+0 and 36+6 weeks will be asked to participate in a multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Women will be randomised to either induction of labour or expectant monitoring. In the expectant monitoring arm, women will be induced only when the maternal or fetal condition detoriates or at 37+0 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome measure is a composite endpoint of maternal mortality, severe maternal complications (eclampsia, HELLP syndrome, pulmonary oedema and thromboembolic disease) and progression to severe pre-eclampsia. Secondary outcomes measures are respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), neonatal morbidity and mortality, caesarean section and vaginal instrumental delivery rates, maternal quality of life and costs. Analysis will be intention to treat. The power calculation is based on an expectant reduction of the maternal composite endpoint from 5% to 1% for an expected increase in neonatal RDS from 1% at 37 weeks to 10% at 34 weeks. This implies that 680 women have to be randomised., Discussion: This trial will provide insight as to whether in women with hypertensive disorders late pre-term, induction of labour is an effective treatment to prevent severe maternal complications without compromising the neonatal morbidity., Trial Registration: NTR1792 CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.trialregister.nl.