Dataset Information

Foley catheter vs. oral misoprostol to induce labour among hypertensive women in India: a cost-consequence analysis alongside a clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the effectiveness and economic impact of two methods for induction of labour in hypertensive women, in low-resource settings.

Design

Cost-consequence analysis of a previously reported multicentre, parallel, open-label randomised trial.

Setting & population

A total of 602 women with a live fetus, aged ≥18 years requiring delivery for pre-eclampsia or hypertension, in two public hospitals in Nagpur, India.

Methods

We performed a formal economic evaluation alongside the INFORM clinical trial. Women were randomised to receive transcervical Foley catheterisation or oral misoprostol 25 mcg. Healthcare expenditure was calculated using a provider-side microcosting approach.

Main outcome measures

Rates of vaginal this delivery within 24 hours of induction, healthcare expenditure per completed treatment episode.

Results

Induction with oral misoprostol resulted in a (mean difference) $20.6USD reduction in healthcare expenditure [95% CI (-) $123.59 (-) $72.49], and improved achievement of vaginal delivery within 24 hours of induction, mean difference 10% [95% CI (-2 to 17.9%), P = 0.016]. Oxytocin administration time was reduced by 135.3 minutes [95% CI (84.4-186.2 minutes), P < 0.01] and caesarean sections by 9.1% [95% CI (1.1-17%), P = 0.025] for those receiving oral misoprostol. Following probabilistic sensitivity analysis, oral misoprostol was cost-saving in 63% of 5,000 bootstrap replications and achieved superior rates of vaginal delivery, delivery within 24 hours of induction and vaginal delivery within 24 hours of induction in 98.7%, 90.7%, and 99.4% of bootstrap simulations. Based on univariate threshold analysis, the unit price of oral misoprostol 25 mcg could feasibly increase 31-fold from $0.24 to $7.50 per 25 mcg tablet and remain cost-saving.

Conclusion

Compared to Foley catheterisation for the induction of high-risk hypertensive women, oral misoprostol improves rates of vaginal delivery within 24 hours of induction and may also reduce costs. Additional research performed in other low-resource settings is required to determine their relative cost-effectiveness.

Tweetable abstract

Oral misoprostol less costly and more effective than Foley catheter for labour induction in hypertension.

SUBMITTER: Leigh S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6282740 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Foley catheter vs. oral misoprostol to induce labour among hypertensive women in India: a cost-consequence analysis alongside a clinical trial.

Leigh S S Granby P P Haycox A A Mundle S S Bracken H H Khedikar V V Mulik J J Faragher B B Easterling T T Turner M A MA Alfirevic Z Z Winikoff B B Weeks A D AD

BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 20180622 13

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the effectiveness and economic impact of two methods for induction of labour in hypertensive women, in low-resource settings.<h4>Design</h4>Cost-consequence analysis of a previously reported multicentre, parallel, open-label randomised trial.<h4>Setting & population</h4>A total of 602 women with a live fetus, aged ≥18 years requiring delivery for pre-eclampsia or hypertension, in two public hospitals in Nagpur, India.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a formal economic e ...[more]

PMID: 29782065

Similar Datasets

Project description:Currently, there is no meta-analysis comparing intravaginal misoprostol plus intracervical Foley catheter versus intravaginal misoprostol alone for term pregnancy without identifying risk factors. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing concurrent intravaginal misoprostol and intracervical Foley catheter versus intravaginal misoprostol alone for cervical ripening. We systematically searched Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane Collaboration databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intracervical Foley catheter plus intravaginal misoprostol and intravaginal misoprostol alone using the search terms "Foley", "misoprostol", "cervical ripening", and "induction" up to 29 January 2019. Data were extracted and analyzed by two independent reviewers including study characteristics, induction time, cesarean section (C/S), clinical suspicion of chorioamnionitis, uterine tachysystole, meconium stain, and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions. Data was pooled using random effects modeling and calculated with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Pooled analysis from eight studies, including 1110 women, showed that labor induction using a combination of intracervical Foley catheter and intravaginal misoprostol decreased induction time by 2.71 h (95% CI -4.33 to -1.08, p = 0.001), as well as the risk of uterine tachysystole and meconium staining (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30-0.99 and RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32-0.73, respectively) significantly compared to those using intravaginal misoprostol alone. However, there was no difference in C/S rate (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78-1.11) or clinical suspicion of chorioamnionitis rate (RR 1.22, CI 0.58-2.57) between the two groups. Labor induction with a combination of intracervical Foley catheter and intravaginal misoprostol may be a better choice based on advantages in shortening induction time and reducing the risk of uterine tachysystole and meconium staining compared to intravaginal misoprostol alone.

Project description:BackgroundInduction of labour (IOL) is one of the commonest obstetric interventions, with significant impact on both the individual woman and health service delivery. Outpatient IOL is an attractive option to reduce these impacts. To date there is little data comparing outpatient and inpatient IOL methods, and potential safety concerns (hyperstimulation) if prostaglandins, the standard inpatient IOL medications, are used in the outpatient setting. The purpose of this study was to assess feasibility, clinical effectiveness and patient acceptability of outpatient Foley catheter (OPC) vs. inpatient vaginal PGE2 (IP) for induction of labour (IOL) at term.MethodsWomen with an unfavourable cervix requiring IOL at term (N=101) were randomised to outpatient care using Foley catheter (OPC, n=50) or inpatient care using vaginal PGE2 (IP, n=51). OPC group had Foley catheter inserted and were discharged overnight following a reassuring cardiotocograph. IP group received 2 mg/1 mg vaginal PGE2 if nulliparous or 1 mg/1 mg if multiparous. Main outcome measures were inpatient stay (prior to birth, in Birthing Unit, total), mode of birth, induction to delivery interval, adverse reactions and patient satisfaction.ResultsOPC group had shorter hospital stay prior to birth (21.3 vs. 32.4 hrs, p< .001), IP were more likely to achieve vaginal birth within 12 hours of presenting to Birthing Unit (53% vs. 28%, p= .01). Vaginal birth rates (66% OPC Vs. 71% IP), total induction to delivery time (33.5 hrs vs. 31.3 hrs) and total inpatient times (96 hrs OPC Vs. 105 hrs IP) were similar. OPC group felt less pain (significant discomfort 26% Vs 58%, p=.003), and had more sleep (5.8 Vs 3.4 hours, p< .001), during cervical preparation, but were more likely to require oxytocin IOL (88 Vs 59%, p=.001).ConclusionsOPC was feasible and acceptable for IOL of women with an unfavourable cervix at term compared to IP, however did not show a statistically significant reduction in total inpatient stay and was associated with increased oxytocin IOL.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN:12609000420246.

Project description:ImportanceMedication management of early pregnancy loss (EPL), or miscarriage, typically involves the administration of misoprostol with or without pretreatment with mifepristone. Combination treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol is more effective than misoprostol alone but is underutilized in the US.ObjectiveTo describe differences in clinical outcomes after EPL management with mifepristone plus misoprostol vs misoprostol alone using commercial claims data.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used national insurance claims data from the IBM MarketScan Research Database. Participants included pregnant people (aged 15-49 years) with private insurance who presented with an initial EPL diagnosis between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2022.ExposuresThe primary exposure was the medication used to manage EPL (ie, mifepristone plus misoprostol or misoprostol alone). Other exposures of interest included demographic characteristics and location of service.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was subsequent procedural management (eg, uterine aspiration) after EPL diagnosis and medication management. Other outcomes of interest included return visits, hospitalizations, and complications occurring in the subsequent 6 weeks. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were used, and a multivariable logistic regression model was created to examine factors associated with subsequent procedural management.ResultsThis study included 31 977 patients (mean [SD] age, 32.7 [5.6] years) with claims for EPL who received medication management. Of these patients, 3.0% received mifepristone plus misoprostol and 97.0% received misoprostol alone. Patients who received misoprostol with pretreatment with mifepristone were less likely to have subsequent uterine aspiration (10.5% vs 14.0%; P = .002), and they were also less likely to have subsequent emergency department (ED) visits for EPL (3.5% vs 7.9%; P < .001). In multivariable analysis, use of mifepristone plus misoprostol was associated with decreased odds of subsequent procedural management (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.57-0.87]).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this study suggest that mifepristone is underutilized for the medication management of EPL, but its use is associated with a lower need for subsequent uterine aspiration and a decrease in the number of subsequent visits to an ED. Increasing access to mifepristone for EPL management may decrease health care utilization and expenditures.

Dataset Information

Foley catheter vs. oral misoprostol to induce labour among hypertensive women in India: a cost-consequence analysis alongside a clinical trial.

Objective

Design

Setting & population

Methods

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Tweetable abstract

Publications

Foley catheter vs. oral misoprostol to induce labour among hypertensive women in India: a cost-consequence analysis alongside a clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets