Cost-effectiveness analysis of prostaglandin E2 gel for the induction of labour at term

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of prostaglandin E2 (dinoprostone) vaginal gel for the induction of labour at term from the perspective of the UK's National Health Service.

DESIGN

Economic evaluation conducted as part of a randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Maternity department at a major teaching hospital in London, UK.

POPULATION

A cohort of 165 pregnant women presenting as cephalic between 36(+⁶) and 41(+⁶) weeks of gestation, for whom induction of labour was deemed necessary.

METHODS

Either 3-mg Prostin E2 vaginal tablets or 1- or 2-mg Prostin E2 vaginal gel were administered at 6-hourly intervals.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost per hour prevented between induction and delivery. The nonparametric bootstrap method was used to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and estimate net benefits at alternative cost-effectiveness thresholds.

RESULTS

Women receiving the gel accrued nonsignificantly higher costs (incremental cost £630; bootstrap 95% CI -£353, £2320; P = 0.43), and experienced a significantly reduced interval between induction and delivery (median of 1400 versus 1780 minutes; mean of 1711 versus 2765 minutes; P = 0.03). The incremental cost per hour prevented from induction of labour to delivery was estimated at £36. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £100 per hour of care prevented, the probability that the gel is cost-effective was estimated at 0.83, and the mean net benefit to the health services was estimated at £1121 (bootstrap 95% CI -£1133, £3379). The results were sensitive to the inclusion of neonatal costs in the analysis and the value of the cost-effectiveness threshold. Notably, excluding neonatal costs increased the probability that the gel is cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £100 per hour of care prevented to 0.99.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that prostaglandin E2 gel is probably more cost-effective than prostaglandin E2 tablets for the induction of labour at term. Given that the results are applicable to the general obstetric population requiring induction of labour at term, decision-makers should consider the likely economic impacts of their implementation.

The cost-effectiveness of outpatient (at home) cervical ripening with isosorbide mononitrate prior to induction of labour

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cost-effectiveness of outpatient (at home) cervical ripening with isosorbide mononitrate (IMN) prior to induction of labour.

DESIGN

Economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomised placebo controlled trial (the IMOP trial).

SETTING

Large UK maternity hospital.

POPULATION

A total of 350 nulliparous women with a singleton pregnancy, cephalic presentation > or = 37 weeks gestation, requiring cervical ripening prior to induction of labour.

INTERVENTIONS

Isosorbide mononitrate (n = 177) or placebo (n = 173) self-administered vaginally at home at 48, 32 and 16 hours prior to the scheduled time of admission for induction.

RESULTS

Mean health service costs between the period of randomisation and discharge for mother and infant were 1254.86 pound sterling in the IMN group and 1242.88 pound sterling in the placebo group, generating a mean cost difference of 11.98 pound sterling (bootstrap mean cost difference 12.86 pound sterling; 95%CI: -106.79 pound sterling, 129.39 pound sterling) that was not statistically significant (P = 0.842). The incremental cost per hour prevented from hospital admission to delivery was 7.53 pound sterling. At the notional willingness to pay threshold of 100 pound sterling per hour prevented from hospital admission to delivery, the probability that IMN is cost-effective was estimated at 0.67. This translated into a mean net monetary benefit of 98.13 pound sterling for each woman given IMN.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the probability that IMN is cost-effective approaches 0.7 at seemingly low willingness to pay thresholds for an hour prevented from hospital admission to delivery, our results should be viewed in the light of the clinical findings from the IMOP trial.

Patient isolation measures for infants with candida colonization or infection for preventing or reducing transmission of candida in neonatal units

BACKGROUND

Candida is one of the most common nosocomial infections in the intensive care setting worldwide and is associated with increased healthcare costs. In neonates, candida infection is associated with high mortality and morbidity. Candida is transmitted by direct and indirect contact. Routine infection control measures that include standard precautions are routinely employed to prevent spread of nosocomial infections. Patient isolation measures, i.e. single room isolation or cohorting, are usually recommended for infections spread by contact.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of patient isolation measures (single room isolation and/or cohorting) for infants with candida colonization or infection as an adjunct to routine infection control measures on the transmission of candida to other infants in the neonatal unit.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Relevant trials in any language were searched in the following databases in Jan 2007: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 - Jan 2007) and PREMEDLINE, EMBASE (1980 - Jan 2007), CINAHL (1982 - Jan 2007). Proceedings of the Pediatric Academic Societies (American Pediatric Society, Society for Pediatric Research) and the European Society for Pediatric Research (1987 - Jan 2007) were also searched in Jan 2007. Authors or other experts were contacted for more information on relevant published or unpublished trials. Additional searches were also made in the reference lists of relevant journal articles and in the reviewer's personal files.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Types of studies: Cluster randomized trials (where clusters may be defined by hospital, ward, or other subunits of the hospital).

TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS

Neonatal units caring for infants colonized or infected with candida. Types of interventions: A policy of patient isolation measures (single room isolation or cohorting of infants with candida colonization or infection) compared to routine isolation measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG) were to be used to identify studies and to assess the methodological quality of eligible trials. The statistical package (RevMan 4.2) provided by the Cochrane Collaboration was to be used. In cluster-randomized trials, if the unit of analysis of the trial was the cluster (not individuals) and analysis took into account the correlation between clusters, the inverse variance method was to be used for meta-analysis. If this was not the case, a narrative synthesis was to be made without meta-analysis. Infection rates and colonization rates were to be expressed as rate ratios for each trial and if appropriate for meta-analysis, the generic inverse variance method in RevMan was to be used.

MAIN RESULTS

No eligible trials were identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review found no evidence to either support or refute the use of patient isolation measures (single room isolation or cohorting) in neonates with candida colonization or infection. Despite the evidence for transmission of candida by direct or indirect contact and evidence of cross-infection by health care workers, no standard policy of patient isolation measures beyond routine infection control measures exists in the neonatal unit. There is an urgent need to research the role of patient isolation measures for preventing transmission of candida in the neonatal unit. Cluster randomized trials involving multiple units or hospitals with randomized allocation of one type of patient isolation measure or the other (i.e. single room isolation or cohorting) with careful consideration for determining an appropriate sample size and analysis would be the most appropriate method to research this intervention.