Beyond usual care: the economic consequences of expanding treatment options in early pregnancy loss

Miscarriage matters: the epidemiological, physical, psychological, and economic costs of early pregnancy loss

Miscarriage is generally defined as the loss of a pregnancy before viability. An estimated 23 million miscarriages occur every year worldwide, translating to 44 pregnancy losses each minute. The pooled risk of miscarriage is 15·3% (95% CI 12·5-18·7%) of all recognised pregnancies. The population prevalence of women who have had one miscarriage is 10·8% (10·3-11·4%), two miscarriages is 1·9% (1·8-2·1%), and three or more miscarriages is 0·7% (0·5-0·8%). Risk factors for miscarriage include very young or older female age (younger than 20 years and older than 35 years), older male age (older than 40 years), very low or very high body-mass index, Black ethnicity, previous miscarriages, smoking, alcohol, stress, working night shifts, air pollution, and exposure to pesticides. The consequences of miscarriage are both physical, such as bleeding or infection, and psychological. Psychological consequences include increases in the risk of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicide. Miscarriage, and especially recurrent miscarriage, is also a sentinel risk marker for obstetric complications, including preterm birth, fetal growth restriction, placental abruption, and stillbirth in future pregnancies, and a predictor of longer-term health problems, such as cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism. The costs of miscarriage affect individuals, health-care systems, and society. The short-term national economic cost of miscarriage is estimated to be £471 million per year in the UK. As recurrent miscarriage is a sentinel marker for various obstetric risks in future pregnancies, women should receive care in preconception and obstetric clinics specialising in patients at high risk. As psychological morbidity is common after pregnancy loss, effective screening instruments and treatment options for mental health consequences of miscarriage need to be available. We recommend that miscarriage data are gathered and reported to facilitate comparison of rates among countries, to accelerate research, and to improve patient care and policy development.

Cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy for fresh donor oocyte cycles

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether in vitro fertilization (IVF) with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) is cost effective to achieve a live birth compared with IVF alone in fresh donor oocyte cycles.

DESIGN

Theoretical cost-effectiveness study.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENTS

None.

INTERVENTIONS

Comparison between the cost of IVF with PGT-A vs. IVF alone to achieve a live birth. The model analyzed a hypothetical single fresh oocyte donor IVF cycle with PGT-A vs. IVF alone and followed the progression of a single embryo through the different decision nodes. Cost estimates assigned to each clinical event were based on data obtained from the literature and institutional costs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost per live birth.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, IVF with PGT-A was not cost effective in fresh donor oocyte cycles when compared with IVF alone to achieve a live birth. The cycles using PGT-A cost an additional $6,018.66. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was found to be $119,606.59 per additional live birth achieved with IVF with PGT-A. Monte Carlo simulations demonstrated that IVF with PGT-A was not cost effective in nearly all iterations.

CONCLUSIONS

PGT-A in fresh donor oocyte IVF cycles is not cost effective compared with IVF alone over a wide range of probabilities and costs.

Miscarriage Treatment-Related Morbidities and Adverse Events in Hospitals, Ambulatory Surgery Centers, and Office-Based Settings

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to examine whether miscarriage treatment-related morbidities and adverse events vary across facility types.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study compared miscarriage treatment-related morbidities and adverse events across hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), and office-based settings. Data on women who had miscarriage treatment between 2011 and 2014 and were continuously enrolled in their insurance plan for at least 1 year before and at least 6 weeks after treatment were obtained from a large national private insurance claims database. The main outcome was miscarriage treatment-related morbidities and adverse events occurring within 6 weeks of miscarriage treatment. Secondary outcomes were major events and infections.

RESULTS

A total of 97,374 miscarriage treatments met inclusion criteria. Most (75%) were provided in hospitals, 10% ASCs, and 15% office-based settings. A total of 9.3% had miscarriage treatment-related events, 1.0% major events, and 1.5% infections. In adjusted analyses, there were fewer events in ASCs (6.5%) than office-based settings (9.4%) and hospitals (9.6%), but no significant difference between office-based settings and hospitals. There were no significant differences in major events between ASCs (0.7%) and office-based settings (0.8%), but more in hospitals (1.1%) than ASCs and office-based settings. There were fewer infections in ASCs (0.9%) than office-based settings (1.2%) and more in hospitals (1.6%) than ASCs and office-based settings. In analyses stratified by miscarriage treatment type, the difference between ASCs and office-based settings was no longer significant for miscarriages treated with procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there seem to be slightly more events in hospitals than ASCs or office-based settings, findings do not support limiting miscarriage treatment to particular settings.

Management of first-trimester miscarriage: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

First-trimester miscarriage affects up to a quarter of women worldwide. With many competing treatment options available, there is a need for a comprehensive evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES AND RATIONALE

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness and safety of treatment options for first-trimester miscarriage: expectant management (EXP), sharp dilation and curettage (D+C), electric vacuum aspiration (EVAC), manual vacuum aspiration (MVA), misoprostol alone (MISO), mifepristone+misoprostol (MIFE+MISO) and misoprostol plus electric vacuum aspiration (MISO+EVAC).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED and Cochrane Library from inception till June 2018. We included randomized trials of women with first-trimester miscarriage (<14 weeks gestation) and conducted a network meta-analysis generating both direct and mixed evidence on the effectiveness and side effects of available treatment options. The primary outcome was complete evacuation of products of conception. We assessed the risk of bias and the global network inconsistency. We compared the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for each treatment.

OUTCOMES

A total of 46 trials (9250 women) were included. The quality of included studies was overall moderate with some studies demonstrating a high risk of bias. We detected unexplained inconsistency in evidence loops involving MIFE+MISO and adjusted for it. EXP had lower effectiveness compared to other treatment options. The effectiveness of medical treatments was similar compared to surgery. Mixed evidence of low confidence suggests increased effectiveness for MIFE+MISO compared to MISO alone (RR 1.49, 95% CI: 1.09-2.03). Side effects were similar among all options. Fewer women needed analgesia following EVAC compared to MISO (RR for MISO 0.43, 95% CI: 0.27-0.68) and in the EXP group compared to EVAC (RR 2.07, 95% CI: 1.25-3.41). MVA had higher ranking (low likelihood) for post-treatment infection and serious complications (SUCRA 87.6 and 79.2%, respectively) with the highest likelihood for post-treatment satisfaction (SUCRA 98%).

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Medical treatments for first-trimester miscarriage have similar effectiveness and side effects compared to surgery. The addition of MIFE could increase the effectiveness of MISO and reduce side effects, although evidence is limited due to inconsistency. EXP has lower effectiveness compared to other treatment options.Systematic review registration: Prospero CRD42016048920.

Cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic screening for women older than 37 undergoing in vitro fertilization

PURPOSE

Adding preimplantation genetic screening to in vitro fertilization has been shown to increase live birth rate in women older than 37. However, preimplantation genetic screening is an expensive procedure. Information on the cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic screening can help inform clinical decision making.

METHODS

We constructed a decision analytic model for a hypothetical fresh, autologous in vitro fertilization cycle (with versus without preimplantation genetic screening) for women older than age 37 who had a successful oocyte retrieval and development of at least one blastocyst. The model incorporated probability and cost estimates of relevant clinical events based on data from published literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the impact of changes in model input parameters.

RESULTS

In base-case analysis, IVF-PGS offered a 4.2 percentage point increase in live birth rate for an additional cost of $4509, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $105,489 per additional live birth. This ICER was below the expected cost of $145,063 for achieving one live birth with IVF (assuming an average LBR of 13.4% and $19,415 per cycle for this patient population). Sensitivity analysis suggested that ICER improved substantially with decreases in PGS cost and increases in PGS effectiveness. Monte Carlo simulation showed PGS to be cost-effective in 93.9% of iterations at an acceptability cutoff of $145,063.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the expected cost of achieving one live birth with IVF, PGS is a cost-effective strategy for women older than 37 undergoing IVF. Additional research on patients' willingness-to-pay per live birth would further inform our understanding regarding the cost-effectiveness of PGS.

Lifetime Economic Burden of Rape Among U.S. Adults

INTRODUCTION

This study estimated the per-victim U.S. lifetime cost of rape.

METHODS

Data from previous studies was combined with current administrative data and 2011 U.S. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey data in a mathematical model. Rape was defined as any lifetime completed or attempted forced penetration or alcohol- or drug-facilitated penetration, measured among adults not currently institutionalized. Costs included attributable impaired health, lost productivity, and criminal justice costs from the societal perspective. Average age at first rape was assumed to be 18 years. Future costs were discounted by 3%. The main outcome measures were the average per-victim (female and male) and total population discounted lifetime cost of rape. Secondary outcome measures were marginal outcome probabilities among victims (e.g., suicide attempt) and perpetrators (e.g., incarceration) and associated costs. Analysis was conducted in 2016.

RESULTS

The estimated lifetime cost of rape was $122,461 per victim, or a population economic burden of nearly $3.1 trillion (2014 U.S. dollars) over victims' lifetimes, based on data indicating >25 million U.S. adults have been raped. This estimate included $1.2 trillion (39% of total) in medical costs; $1.6 trillion (52%) in lost work productivity among victims and perpetrators; $234 billion (8%) in criminal justice activities; and $36 billion (1%) in other costs, including victim property loss or damage. Government sources pay an estimated $1 trillion (32%) of the lifetime economic burden.

CONCLUSIONS

Preventing sexual violence could avoid substantial costs for victims, perpetrators, healthcare payers, employers, and government payers. These findings can inform evaluations of interventions to reduce sexual violence.

Doulas for surgical management of miscarriage and abortion: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Women undergoing office-based surgical management of a failed or undesired pregnancy often report fear of pain and anxiety pertaining to the procedure. Doulas are trained to specifically address women's physical and emotional needs in obstetric care, and recently have extended their practice to support women through all pregnancy outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the impact of doulas on patients' physical and emotional responses to surgical management of a first-trimester failed or undesired pregnancy under local anesthesia.

STUDY DESIGN

In this nonblinded, randomized trial, women received doula support or routine care during office uterine aspiration for failed or unwanted pregnancies in the first trimester. The primary outcome was pain measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction, emotional state, sense of personal empowerment, and ability to cope immediately and 1 month after the procedure, as well as medical assistants' assessment of the doula's utility. A sample size of 35 per group (N = 70) was planned to detect a 20% difference in pain score.

RESULTS

From April 2014 through January 2015, 129 women were screened and 70 were randomized. The 2 study groups were similar on all baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was not different between the doula and control groups (pain score 70.7 ± 24.5 mm vs 59.7 ± 32.5 mm, P = .11, respectively), even after controlling for procedure indication (P = .20). While 97% of women who received doula support reported this helped with their experience, there was no statistically significant difference in satisfaction, emotional response, sense of empowerment, or perceived ability to cope between the 2 groups of women immediately following or 1 month after the procedure. Of all study participants, 72% reported that it was important to have someone with them during the procedure, but that the support person did not have to be a doula.

CONCLUSION

Doula support during office uterine aspiration for failed or undesired pregnancies is well received and desired by women undergoing this procedure despite no significant effect on physical comfort or emotional responses related to the procedure. This may suggest an unmet psychosocial need for procedure-related support among such women.