Induction of labour at 41 weeks of gestation versus expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks of gestation: a cost-effectiveness analysis

被引:10
|
作者
Alkmark, M. [1 ,2 ]
Wennerholm, U-B [1 ,2 ]
Saltvedt, S. [3 ]
Bergh, C. [2 ]
Carlsson, Y. [1 ,2 ]
Elden, H. [2 ,4 ]
Fadl, H. [5 ]
Jonsson, M. [6 ]
Ladfors, L. [1 ,2 ]
Sengpiel, V [1 ,2 ]
Wesstrom, J. [6 ,7 ]
Hagberg, H. [1 ,2 ]
Svensson, M. [8 ]
机构
[1] Univ Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska Acad, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Ctr Perinatal Med & Hlth,Inst Clin Sci, Gothenburg, Sweden
[2] Sahlgrens Univ Hosp, Reg Vastra Gotaland, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Gothenburg, Sweden
[3] Karolinska Univ Hosp, Karolinska Inst, Dept Womens & Childrens Hlth, Stockholm, Sweden
[4] Univ Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska Acad, Inst Hlth & Caring Sci, Gothenburg, Sweden
[5] Orebro Univ, Fac Med & Hlth, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Orebro, Sweden
[6] Uppsala Univ, Dept Womens & Childrens Hlth, Uppsala, Sweden
[7] Falun Cent Hosp, Ctr Clin Res Dalarna, Falun, Sweden
[8] Univ Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska Acad, Inst Med, Sch Publ Hlth & Community Med, Gothenburg, Sweden
关键词
Cost-effectiveness; induction of labour; prolonged pregnancy; POSTTERM PREGNANCY; TRIALS; HEALTH; RISK; WOMEN; TERM;
D O I
10.1111/1471-0528.16929
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of induction of labour (IOL) at 41 weeks of gestation compared with expectant management until 42 weeks of gestation. Design A cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the Swedish Post-term Induction Study (SWEPIS), a multicentre, randomised controlled superiority trial. Setting Fourteen Swedish hospitals during 2016-2018. Population Women with an uncomplicated singleton pregnancy with a fetus in cephalic position were randomised at 41 weeks of gestation to IOL or to expectant management and induction at 42 weeks of gestation. Methods Health benefits were measured in life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for mother and child. Total cost per birth was calculated, including healthcare costs from randomisation to discharge after delivery, for mother and child. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated by dividing the difference in mean cost between the trial arms by the difference in life years and QALYs, respectively. Sampling uncertainty was evaluated using non-parametric bootstrapping. Main outcome measures The cost per gained life year and per gained QALY. Results The differences in life years and QALYs gained were driven by the difference in perinatal mortality alone. The absolute risk reduction in mortality was 0.004 (from 6/1373 to 0/1373). Based on Swedish life tables, this gives a mean gain in discounted life years and QALYs of 0.14 and 0.12 per birth, respectively. The mean cost per birth was euro4108 in the IOL group (n = 1373) and euro4037 in the expectant management group (n = 1373), with a mean difference of euro71 (95% CI -euro232 to euro379). The ICER for IOL compared with expectant management was euro545 per life year gained and euro623 per QALY gained. Confidence intervals were relatively wide and included the possibility that IOL had both lower costs and better health outcomes. Conclusions Induction of labour at 41 weeks of gestation results in a better health outcome and no significant difference in costs. IOL is cost-effective compared with expectant management until 42 weeks of gestation using standard threshold values for acceptable cost per life year/QALY. Tweetable abstract Induction of labour at 41 weeks of gestation is cost-effective compared with expectant management until 42 weeks of gestation.
引用
收藏
页码:2157 / 2165
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Cost effectiveness of induction of labour at 41 versus 42 weeks of gestation
    Ahmed, Rubayyi
    Ahmed, Sheikh Mohammad
    Rauf, Sameer Abdul
    Baig, Rooha
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2023,
  • [2] Cost-effectiveness analysis of induction of labour at 41 weeks and expectant management until 42 weeks in low risk women (INDEX trial)
    Bruinsma, Aafke
    Keulen, Judit K. J.
    Van Eekelen, Rik
    Van Wely, Madelon
    Kortekaas, Joep C.
    Van Dillen, Jeroen
    Van de Post, Joris A. M.
    Mol, Ben W.
    de Miranda, Esteriek
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY-X, 2023, 17
  • [3] Routine induction of labour at 41 weeks gestation: nonsensus consensus
    Menticoglou, SM
    Hall, PF
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2002, 109 (05) : 485 - 491
  • [4] Routine induction of labour at 41 weeks of gestation: nonsensus consensus
    Leung, WC
    Lao, TT
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2002, 109 (12) : 1416 - 1417
  • [5] Study on induction of labour versus expectant management in gestational hypertension or mild preeclampsia after 36 weeks of gestation
    Majeed, A.
    Kundu, S.
    Singh, P.
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2014, 121 : 118 - 118
  • [6] A RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF INDUCTION AT 42 WEEKS GESTATION VERSUS EXPECTANT MANAGEMENT FOR POSTDATES PREGNANCIES
    WITTER, FR
    WEITZ, CM
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY, 1987, 4 (03) : 206 - 211
  • [8] Induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation versus expectant management for low-risk nulliparous women: a cost-effectiveness analysis
    Hersh, Alyssa R.
    Skeith, Ashley E.
    Sargent, James A.
    Caughey, Aaron B.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2019, 220 (06) : 590.e1 - 590.e10
  • [9] Induction of labor versus expectant management at 39 weeks: a cost-effectiveness analysis
    Hersh, Alyssa R.
    Skeith, Ashley E.
    Sargent, James A.
    Caughey, Aaron B.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2019, 220 (01) : S18 - S18
  • [10] Induction of Labour at 41 Weeks Versus Expectant Management and Induction of Labour at 42 Weeks (SWEdish Post-Term Induction Study, SWEPIS): Multicentre, Open Label, Randomised, Superiority Trial
    Wennerholm, Ulla-Britt
    Saltvedt, Sissel
    Wessberg, Anna
    Alkmark, Marten
    Bergh, Christina
    Brismar Wendel, Sophia
    Fadl, Helena
    Jonsson, Maria
    Ladfors, Lars
    Sengpiel, Verena
    Wesstrom, Jan
    Wennergren, Goeran
    Wikstrom, Anna-Karin
    Elden, Helen
    Stephansson, Olof
    Hagberg, Henrik
    OBSTETRICAL & GYNECOLOGICAL SURVEY, 2020, 75 (04) : 207 - 209