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

Synthetic osmotic dilators (Dilapan-S) or dinoprostone vaginal inserts (Propess) for inpatient induction of labour: A UK cost-consequence model

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the costs of synthetic osmotic dilators (Dilapan-S) compared to dinoprostone vaginal inserts (Propess) for inpatient induction of labour (IOL).

STUDY DESIGN

A population-level, Markov model-based cost-consequence analysis was developed to compare the impact of using Dilapan-S versus Propess. The time horizon was modelled from admission to birth. The target population was women requiring inpatient IOL from 37 weeks with an unfavourable cervix in the UK. Mean population characteristics reflected those of the SOLVE (NCT03001661) trial. No patient data were included in this analysis. The care pathways and staff workload were modelled using data from the SOLVE trial and clinical experience. Cost and clinical inputs were sourced from the SOLVE trial and peer-reviewed literature. Costs were inflated to 2020 British pounds (GBP, £). Outcomes were reported as an average per woman for total costs and required staff time (minutes) from admission for IOL until birth. The model robustness was assessed using a probabilistic, multivariate sensitivity analysis of 2,000 simulations with results presented as the median (interquartile range, IQR).

RESULTS

Dilapan-S was cost neutral compared to Propess. Midwife and obstetrician times were decreased by 146 min (-11%) and 11 min (-54%), respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that in 78% of simulations, use of Dilapan-S reduced midwife time with a median of -160 min (IQR -277 to -24 min). Costs were reduced in 54% of simulations (median -£33, IQR -£319 to £282).

CONCLUSIONS

The model indicates that adoption of Dilapan-S is likely to be cost-neutral and reduce staff workload in comparison to Propess. Results require support from real-world data and further exploration of Dilapan-S is to be encouraged.

Economic evaluation of computerised interpretation of fetal heart rate during labour: a cost-consequence analysis alongside the INFANT study

OBJECTIVE

Economic evaluation of computerised decision-support software intended to assist in the interpretation of a cardiotocography (CTG) during birth.

DESIGN

Individual patient level data from the INFANT study (an unmasked randomised controlled trial).

SETTING

Maternity units in the UK and Ireland.

POPULATION

Singleton or twin pregnancy women of 35 weeks' gestation or more and receiving continuous electronic fetal monitoring during labour.

INTERVENTION

Computerised decision-support software.

METHODS

Cost-consequence analysis presenting costs and outcomes with a time horizon of 2 years from a government healthcare perspective. Unit cost data collected from a combination of primary and secondary sources.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary clinical outcomes were (i) composite 'poor neonatal outcome' and (ii) developmental assessment at age 2 years in a subset of surviving children. Mean cost per mother and infant dyad from birth to hospital discharge, and from hospital discharge to 24 months follow-up. Maternal health-related quality of life was assessed at 12 and 24 months follow-up using the EuroQol three-level health-related quality of life instrument (EQ-5D-3L).

RESULTS

Data were analysed for 46 042 women and 46 614 infants. No statistically significant differences were detected between trial arms in any of the primary clinical outcomes or maternal quality of life. No statistically significant differences in costs were detected in maternal or infant costs from trial entry to hospital discharge or overall from hospital discharge to 2-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision-support software during labour is not associated with additional maternal or infant benefits and over a 2-year period the software did not lead to additional costs or savings to the National Health Service.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN98680152.

Outpatient management of pre-induction cervical ripening

INTRODUCTION

Induction of labor is a common obstetric intervention. For women requiring cervical ripening, the current standard practice of inpatient labor induction can be long and challenging. Outpatient cervical ripening may be a safe and beneficial option for a select subset of low-risk pregnant women.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched with specific criteria to select articles for review. The review covered literature on the safety, efficacy and acceptability of outpatient cervical ripening in the low-risk population.

DISCUSSION

Pharmacological and mechanical cervical ripening agents have been trialed in the outpatient setting. Mechanical ripening is safer than pharmacological priming, and there appears to be no disadvantage to offering outpatient catheter balloon cervical ripening to appropriately screened women who require this intervention prior to labor induction. Maternal and midwifery acceptability of outpatient care further support outpatient cervical ripening for women with low-risk pregnancies.

CONCLUSION

The balloon catheter appears to be the optimal method for outpatient cervical ripening, but further prospective studies are required to ensure safety and benefit before it can be routinely offered to low-risk women.

A multicentre, randomised controlled trial of position during the late stages of labour in nulliparous women with an epidural: clinical effectiveness and an economic evaluation (BUMPES)

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia leads to increased risk of instrumental vaginal delivery (IVD). There is debate about whether or not posture in second-stage labour influences the incidence of spontaneous vaginal birth (SVB).

OBJECTIVES

In nulliparous women with epidural analgesia, does a policy of adopting an 'upright position' throughout second-stage labour increase the incidence of SVB compared with a policy of adopting a 'lying-down' position?

DESIGN

Two-arm randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Maternity units in England and Wales.

PARTICIPANTS

Nulliparous women aged ≥ 16 years, at ≥ 37 weeks' gestation with singleton cephalic presentation and intended SVB, in second-stage labour with an epidural providing effective pain relief.

INTERVENTIONS

(1) Upright position to maintain the pelvis in as vertical a plane as possible; and (2) lying-down position to maintain the pelvis in as horizontal a plane as possible.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was incidence of SVB. Secondary outcomes included augmentation, interventions to maintain blood pressure, duration of labour, episiotomy, genital tract trauma, post-partum haemorrhage, maternal satisfaction, neonatal metabolic acidosis, 5-minute Apgar score of < 4, resuscitation at birth and admission to neonatal unit. At 1 year for (1) women: urinary or faecal incontinence, dyspareunia and health-related quality of life; (2) for infants: major morbidity. A cost-consequences analysis with a time horizon of 1 year after the birth from a NHS perspective.

RESULTS

Between October 2010 and January 2014, 3236 women were randomised from 41 centres in England and Wales. There was a statistically significant difference in the incidence of SVB between groups, with 35.2% of women achieving a SVB in the upright group, compared with 41.1% in the lying-down group (adjusted risk ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.94). There was no evidence of differences in most of the secondary maternal or neonatal outcomes, or in long-term outcomes at the 12-month follow-up. No significant overall cost differences were observed between upright and lying-down positions for mothers or their babies.

LIMITATIONS

Measurement of adherence was challenging in this unmasked trial, and adherence could be influenced by midwives' beliefs about the allocated positions. If adherence was poor, this would have diluted the difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There is clear evidence of the benefit of adopting a lying-down position in second-stage labour in nulliparous women with epidural analgesia, with no apparent disadvantages in either short- or long-term outcomes for mother or baby, and this is cost neutral for the NHS.

FUTURE WORK

Questions remain about whether or not other positions could increase the incidence of SVB further in this group of women. The results also raise questions about the role of maternal position in second-stage labour in women without an epidural.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN35706297.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in Health Technology Assessment, Vol 21, No. 65. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

More than 150,000 pregnant women in England and Wales have their labour induced each year. Multiple pharmacological, mechanical and complementary methods are available to induce labour.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of labour induction methods and, data permitting, effects in different clinical subgroups.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review using Cochrane methods. The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register was searched (March 2014). This contains over 22,000 reports of controlled trials (published from 1923 onwards) retrieved from weekly searches of OVID MEDLINE (1966 to current); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library); EMBASE (1982 to current); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1984 to current); ClinicalTrials.gov; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Portal; and hand-searching of relevant conference proceedings and journals. We included randomised controlled trials examining interventions to induce labour compared with placebo, no treatment or other interventions in women eligible for third-trimester induction. We included outcomes relating to efficacy, safety and acceptability to women. In addition, for the economic analysis we searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Economic Evaluations Databases, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment database. We carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) using all of the available evidence, both direct and indirect, to produce estimates of the relative effects of each treatment compared with others in a network. We developed a de novo decision tree model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various methods. The costs included were the intervention and other hospital costs incurred (price year 2012-13). We reviewed the literature to identify preference-based utilities for the health-related outcomes in the model. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expected costs, utilities and net benefit. We represent uncertainty in the optimal intervention using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

RESULTS

We identified 1190 studies; 611 were eligible for inclusion. The interventions most likely to achieve vaginal delivery (VD) within 24 hours were intravenous oxytocin with amniotomy [posterior rank 2; 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 1 to 9] and higher-dose (≥ 50 µg) vaginal misoprostol (rank 3; 95% CrI 1 to 6). Compared with placebo, several treatments reduced the odds of caesarean section, but we observed considerable uncertainty in treatment rankings. For uterine hyperstimulation, double-balloon catheter had the highest probability of being among the best three treatments, whereas vaginal misoprostol (≥ 50 µg) was most likely to increase the odds of excessive uterine activity. For other safety outcomes there were insufficient data or there was too much uncertainty to identify which treatments performed 'best'. Few studies collected information on women's views. Owing to incomplete reporting of the VD within 24 hours outcome, the cost-effectiveness analysis could compare only 20 interventions. The analysis suggested that most interventions have similar utility and differ mainly in cost. With a caveat of considerable uncertainty, titrated (low-dose) misoprostol solution and buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the highest likelihood of being cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

There was considerable uncertainty in findings and there were insufficient data for some planned subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, misoprostol and oxytocin with amniotomy (for women with favourable cervix) is more successful than other agents in achieving VD within 24 hours. The ranking according to safety of different methods was less clear. The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that titrated (low-dose) oral misoprostol solution resulted in the highest utility, whereas buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the lowest cost. There was a high degree of uncertainty as to the most cost-effective intervention.

FUTURE WORK

Future trials should be powered to detect a method that is more cost-effective than misoprostol solution and report outcomes included in this NMA.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005116.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Reporting and Analysis of Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Evaluations in Obstetrics and Gynaecology

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim was to systematically review whether the reporting and analysis of trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology comply with guidelines and recommendations, and whether this has improved over time.

DATA SOURCES AND SELECTION CRITERIA

A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database to identify trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in obstetrics and gynaecology published between January 1, 2000 and May 16, 2017. Studies performed in middle- and low-income countries and studies related to prevention, midwifery, and reproduction were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard (CHEERS) statement (a modified version with 21 items, as we focused on trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations) and the statistical quality was assessed using a literature-based list of criteria (8 items). Exploratory regression analyses were performed to assess the association between reporting and statistical quality scores and publication year.

RESULTS

The electronic search resulted in 5482 potentially eligible studies. Forty-five studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 22 in obstetrics and 23 in gynaecology. Twenty-seven (60%) studies did not adhere to 50% (n = 10) or more of the reporting quality items and 32 studies (71%) did not meet 50% (n = 4) or more of the statistical quality items. As for the statistical quality, no study used the appropriate method to assess cost differences, no advanced methods were used to deal with missing data, and clustering of data was ignored in all studies. No significant improvements over time were found in reporting or statistical quality in gynaecology, whereas in obstetrics a significant improvement in reporting and statistical quality was found over time.

LIMITATIONS

The focus of this review was on trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in obstetrics and gynaecology, so further research is needed to explore whether results from this review are generalizable to other medical disciplines.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

The reporting and analysis of trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in gynaecology and obstetrics is generally poor. Since this can result in biased results, incorrect conclusions, and inappropriate healthcare decisions, there is an urgent need for improvement in the methods of cost-effectiveness evaluations in this field.

Pharmacological and mechanical interventions for labour induction in outpatient settings

BACKGROUND

Induction of labour is carried out for a variety of indications and using a range of methods. For women at low risk of pregnancy complications, some methods of induction of labour or cervical ripening may be suitable for use in outpatient settings.

OBJECTIVES

To examine pharmacological and mechanical interventions to induce labour or ripen the cervix in outpatient settings in terms of effectiveness, maternal satisfaction, healthcare costs and, where information is available, safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials examining outpatient cervical ripening or induction of labour with pharmacological agents or mechanical methods. Cluster trials were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review included 34 studies of 11 different methods for labour induction with 5003 randomised women, where women received treatment at home or were sent home after initial treatment and monitoring in hospital.Studies examined vaginal and intracervical prostaglandin E₂ (PGE₂), vaginal and oral misoprostol, isosorbide mononitrate, mifepristone, oestrogens, amniotomy and acupuncture, compared with placebo, no treatment, or routine care. Trials generally recruited healthy women with a term pregnancy. The risk of bias was mostly low or unclear, however, in 16 trials blinding was unclear or not attempted. In general, limited data were available on the review's main and additional outcomes. Evidence was graded low to moderate quality. 1. Vaginal PGE₂ versus expectant management or placebo (5 studies)Fewer women in the vaginal PGE₂ group needed additional induction agents to induce labour, however, confidence intervals were wide (risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99; 150 women; 2 trials). There were no clear differences between groups in uterine hyperstimulation (with or without fetal heart rate (FHR) changes) (RR 3.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 22.24; 244 women; 4 studies; low-quality evidence), caesarean section (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.31; 288 women; 4 studies; low-quality evidence), or admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.03; 230 infants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence).There was no information on vaginal birth within 24, 48 or 72 hours, length of hospital stay, use of emergency services or maternal or caregiver satisfaction. Serious maternal and neonatal morbidity or deaths were not reported. 2. Intracervical PGE₂ versus expectant management or placebo (7 studies) There was no clear difference between women receiving intracervical PGE₂ and no treatment or placebo in terms of need for additional induction agents (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.32; 445 women; 3 studies), vaginal birth not achieved within 48 to 72 hours (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.02; 43 women; 1 study; low-quality evidence), uterine hyperstimulation (with FHR changes) (RR 2.66, 95% CI 0.63 to 11.25; 488 women; 4 studies; low-quality evidence), caesarean section (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 674 women; 7 studies; moderate-quality evidence), or babies admitted to NICU (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.43 to 6.05; 215 infants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence). There were no uterine ruptures in either the PGE₂ group or placebo group.There was no information on vaginal birth not achieved within 24 hours, length of hospital stay, use of emergency services, mother or caregiver satisfaction, or serious morbidity or neonatal morbidity or perinatal death. 3. Vaginal misoprostol versus placebo (4 studies)One small study reported on the rate of perinatal death with no clear differences between groups; there were no deaths in the treatment group compared with one stillbirth (reason not reported) in the control group (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.14; 77 infants; 1 study; low-quality evidence).There was no clear difference between groups in rates of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 1.97, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.00; 265 women; 3 studies; low-quality evidence), caesarean section (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.46; 325 women; 4 studies; low-quality evidence), and babies admitted to NICU (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.47; 325 infants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence).There was no information on vaginal birth not achieved within 24, 48 or 72 hours, additional induction agents required, length of hospital stay, use of emergency services, mother or caregiver satisfaction, serious maternal, and other neonatal, morbidity or death.No substantive differences were found for other comparisons. One small study found that women who received oral misoprostol were more likely to give birth within 24 hours (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.86; 87 women; 1 study) and were less likely to require additional induction agents (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.97; 127 women; 2 studies). Women who received mifepristone were also less likely to require additional induction agents (average RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.95; 311 women; 4 studies; I² = 74%); however, this result should be interpreted with caution due to high heterogeneity. One trial each of acupuncture and outpatient amniotomy were included, but few review outcomes were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Induction of labour in outpatient settings appears feasible and important adverse events seem rare, however, in general there is insufficient evidence to detect differences. There was no strong evidence that agents used to induce labour in outpatient settings had an impact (positive or negative) on maternal or neonatal health. There was some evidence that compared to placebo or no treatment, induction agents administered on an outpatient basis reduced the need for further interventions to induce labour, and shortened the interval from intervention to birth.We do not have sufficient evidence to know which induction methods are preferred by women, the interventions that are most effective and safe to use in outpatient settings, or their cost effectiveness. Further studies where various women-friendly outpatient protocols are compared head-to-head are required. As part of such work, women should be consulted on what sort of management they would prefer.

Nitric oxide donors for cervical ripening and induction of labour

BACKGROUND

Sometimes it is necessary to bring on labour artificially because of safety concerns for the mother or baby. This review is one of a series of reviews of methods of labour induction using a standardised protocol.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of NO donors (isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN), isosorbide dinitrate (ISDN), nitroglycerin and sodium nitroprusside) for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour, in comparison with placebo or no treatment or other treatments from a predefined hierarchy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (15 August 2016) and the reference lists of trial reports.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Clinical trials comparing NO donors for cervical ripening or labour induction with other methods listed above it on a predefined list of methods of labour induction. Interventions include NO donors (isosorbide mononitrate, isosorbide dinitrate, nitroglycerin and sodium nitroprusside) compared with other methods listed above it on a predefined list of methods of labour induction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This review is part of a series of reviews focusing on methods of induction of labour, based on a generic protocol. Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. In this update, the quality of the evidence for the main comparison was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 trials (including a total of 4777 women). Included studies compared NO donors with placebo, vaginal prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), intracervical PGE2, vaginal misoprostol and intracervical Foley catheter. The majority of the included studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias. Nitric oxide versus placebo There was no evidence of a difference for any of the primary outcomes analysed: vaginal delivery not achieved in 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.15; one trial, 238 women; low-quality evidence), uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.62; two trials, 300 women; low-quality evidence), caesarean section (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11; nine trials, 2624 women; moderate-quality evidence) or serious neonatal morbidity/perinatal death (average RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.08 to 33.26; two trials, 1712 women; low-quality evidence). There were no instances of serious maternal morbidity or death (one study reported this outcome).There was a reduction in an unfavourable cervix at 12 to 24 hours in women treated with NO donors (average RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.90; four trials, 762 women), and this difference was observed in both subgroups of standard release and slow release formulation. Women who received NO donors were less likely to experience uterine hyperstimulation without FHR rate changes (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.80; one trial, 200 women), and more likely to experience side effects, including nausea, headache and vomiting. Nitric oxide donors versus vaginal prostaglandins There was no evidence of any difference between groups for uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes or caesarean section (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.21; three trials, 571 women). Serious neonatal morbidity and serious maternal morbidity were not reported. There were fewer women in the NO donor group who did not achieve a vaginal delivery within 24 hours (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.86; one trial, 400 primiparae women). Nitric oxide donors versus intracervical prostaglandins One study reported a reduction in the number of women who had not achieved a vaginal delivery within 24 hours with NO donors (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.86; one trial, 400 women). This result should be interpreted with caution as the information was extracted from an abstract only and a full report of the study is awaited. No differences were observed between groups for uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.74; one trial, 42 women) or serious neonatal morbidity/perinatal death (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.74; one trial, 42 women). Fewer women in the NO donor group underwent a caesarean section in comparison to women who received intracervical prostaglandins (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.90; two trials, 442 women). No study reported on the outcome serious maternal morbidity or death. Nitric oxide donors versus vaginal misoprostol There was a reduction in the rate of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes with NO donors (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.37; three trials, 281 women). There were no differences in caesarean section rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.21; 761 women; six trials) and no cases of serious neonatal morbidity/perinatal death were reported. One study found that women in the NO donor group were more likely to not deliver within 24 hours (RR 5.33, 95% CI 1.62 to 17.55; one trial, 150 women). Serious maternal morbidity or death was not reported.In terms of secondary outcomes, there was an increase in cervix unchanged/unfavourable with NO (RR 3.43, 95% CI 2.07 to 5.66; two trials, 151 women) and an increase in the need for oxytocin augmentation with NO induction (RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.31 to 5.45; 7 trials; 767 women), although there was evidence of significant heterogeneity which could not be fully explained. Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR was lower in the NO group, as was meconium-stained liquor, Apgar score less than seven at five minutes and analgesia requirements. Nitric oxide donors versus intracervical catheter There was no evidence on any difference between the effects of NO and the use of a Foley catheter for induction of labour for caesarean section (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.59; one trial, 80 women). No other primary outcomes were reported. One study of 75 participants did not contribute any data to the review.For all comparisons, women who received NO donors were more likely to experience side effects such as headache, nausea or vomiting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available data suggests that NO donors can be a useful tool in the process of induction of labour causing the cervix to be more favourable in comparison to placebo. However, additional data are needed to assess the true impact of NO donors on all important labour process and delivery outcomes.

Methods to induce labour: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

Objectives

To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of labour induction methods.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of randomised trials comparing interventions for third‐trimester labour induction (search date: March 2014). Network meta‐analysis was possible for six of nine prespecified key outcomes: vaginal delivery within 24 hours (VD24), caesarean section, uterine hyperstimulation, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions, instrumental delivery and infant Apgar scores. We developed a decision‐tree model from a UK NHS perspective and calculated incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios, expected costs, utilities and net benefit, and cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves.

Main results

In all, 611 studies comparing 31 active interventions were included. Intravenous oxytocin with amniotomy and vaginal misoprostol (≥50 μg) were most likely to achieve VD24. Titrated low‐dose oral misoprostol achieved the lowest odds of caesarean section, but there was considerable uncertainty in ranking estimates. Vaginal (≥50 μg) and buccal/sublingual misoprostol were most likely to increase uterine hyperstimulation with high uncertainty in ranking estimates. Compared with placebo, extra‐amniotic prostaglandin E₂ reduced NICU admissions. There were insufficient data to conduct analyses for maternal and neonatal mortality and serious morbidity or maternal satisfaction. Conclusions were robust after exclusion of studies at high risk of bias. Due to poor reporting of VD24, the cost‐effectiveness analysis compared a subset of 20 interventions. There was considerable uncertainty in estimates, but buccal/sublingual and titrated (low‐dose) misoprostol showed the highest probability of being most cost‐effective.

Conclusions

Future trials should be designed and powered to detect a method that is more cost‐effective than low‐dose titrated oral misoprostol.

Tweetable abstract

New study ranks methods to induce labour in pregnant women on effectiveness and cost.

New study ranks methods to induce labour in pregnant women on effectiveness and cost.

Induction of labor using prostaglandin vaginal gel: cost analysis comparing early amniotomy with repeat prostaglandin gel

BACKGROUND

In a randomized controlled trial of two policies for induction of labor (IOL) using Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) vaginal gel, women who had an earlier amniotomy experienced a shorter IOL-to-birth time.

OBJECTIVE

To report the cost analysis of this trial and determine if there are differences in healthcare costs when an early amniotomy is performed as opposed to giving more PGE2 vaginal gel, for women undergoing IOL at term.

STUDY DESIGN

Following an evening dose of PGE2 vaginal gel, 245 women with live singleton pregnancies, ≥37+0 weeks, were randomized into an amniotomy or repeat-PGE2 group. Healthcare costs were a secondary outcome measure, sourced from hospital finance systems and included staff costs, equipment and consumables, pharmacy, pathology, hotel services and business overheads. A decision analytic model, specifically a Markov chain, was developed to further investigate costs, and a Monte Carlo simulation was performed to confirm the robustness of these findings. Mean and median costs and cost differences between the two groups are reported, from the hospital perspective.

RESULTS

The healthcare costs associated with IOL were available for all 245 trial participants. A 1000-patient cohort simulation demonstrated that performing an early amniotomy was associated with a cost-saving of $AUD289 ($AUD7094 vs $AUD7338) per woman induced, compared with administering more PGE2. Propagating the uncertainty through the model 10,000 times, early amniotomy was associated with a median cost savings of $AUD487 (IQR -$AUD573, +$AUD1498).

CONCLUSIONS

After an initial dose of PGE2 vaginal gel, a policy of administering more PGE2 when the Modified Bishop's score is <7 was associated with increased healthcare costs compared with a policy of performing an amniotomy, if technically possible. Length of stay was the main driver of healthcare costs.

Cost-effectiveness of term induction of labour using inpatient prostaglandin gel versus outpatient Foley catheter

OBJECTIVE

Evaluating cost-effectiveness of induction of labour (IOL) using outpatient mechanical cervical ripening using a Foley catheter (OFC) compared to inpatient chemical ripening using prostin gel (IPG).

STUDY DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis from a hospital perspective alongside a RCT. Women in a metropolitan Australian maternity hospital with an unfavourable cervix requiring IOL at term were randomised to IPG (n = 51) or OFC (n = 50). Primary economic measures were mean patient costs, incremental cost per predelivery inpatient hour prevented, and incremental cost per vaginal delivery within 12 h of admission to the birthing unit. Bootstrapping estimates were used to construct 95% confidence intervals. Estimates of net monetary benefit were calculated to aid interpretation of the results.

RESULTS

Mean hospital costs per woman were nonsignificantly higher ($6524 OFC vs $5876 IPG) and mean difference $643; 95% CI -$366 to $1652. OFC group experienced fewer predelivery inpatient hours, resulting in an incremental cost per inpatient hour prevented of $57 (95% CI -$79.44 to $190.65). However, OFC patients were less likely to deliver vaginally within 12 h of admission to birthing unit. Other cost influencing clinical outcomes, including caesarean section rates and total inpatient hours, were not statistically different. Results were not sensitive to changes in costs or the cost-effectiveness thresholds.

CONCLUSION

OFC had fewer inpatient hours and costs prior to birth. However, OFC did not reduce overall inpatient hours and failed to achieve comparable rates of vaginal delivery within 12 h of birthing unit admission. Therefore, OFC is unlikely to be considered cost-effective compared to IPG in current hospital settings.

Corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) promotes inflammation in human pregnant myometrium: the evidence of CRH initiating parturition?

CONTEXT

An increasing body of evidence indicates that human labor, either term or preterm, is an inflammatory event. CRH has been implicated to be a trigger of human parturition.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether CRH induces the cascades of inflammation in human pregnant myometrium, thereby leading to activation of uterus.

DESIGN

The myometrial tissues were obtained from pregnant women who were in labor or not in labor at term. The output of cytokines and prostaglandins (PGs) was determined by Multiplex and ELISA. Western blot analysis was used to determine the levels of uterine activation proteins (UAPs).

RESULTS

The levels of chemokines and cytokines as well as activated nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) were increased in the term labor group more than the not term labor group. CRH stimulated production of a number of chemokines and cytokines in cultured uterine smooth muscle cells (USMCs), which induced chemotaxis of monocytes. These effects were mediated by CRH receptor 1 (CRHR1) and dependent on adenylyl cyclase/protein kinase (PKA) and NF-κB signaling. Cocultures of CRH-treated USMCs with monocytes greatly enhanced the output of cytokines and chemokines as well as PGs in cultures and increased the expression of uterine activation proteins (UAPs) in USMCs. IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α stimulated the expression of UAPs and output of PGs in USMCs.

CONCLUSIONS

CRH induces the production of chemokines and cytokines in myometrium at term and subsequently results in the cascade of inflammation in uterus. The inflammation induced by CRH can lead to activation of uterus.

A cost analysis of inpatient compared with outpatient prostaglandin E2 cervical priming for induction of labour: results from the OPRA trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the costs of inpatient (usual care) with outpatient (intervention) care for cervical priming for induction of labour in women with healthy, low-risk pregnancies who are being induced for prolonged pregnancies or for social reasons.

METHODS

Data from a randomised controlled trial at two hospitals in South Australia were matched with hospital financial data. A cost analysis comparing women randomised to inpatient care with those randomised to outpatient care was performed, with an additional analysis focusing on those who received the intervention.

RESULTS

Overall, 48% of women randomised into the trial did not receive the intervention. Women randomised to outpatient care had an overall cost saving of $319 per woman (95% CI -$104 to $742) as compared with women randomised to usual care. When restricted to women who actually received the intervention, in-hospital cost savings of $433 (95% CI -$282 to $1148) were demonstrated in the outpatient group. However, these savings were partially offset by the cost of an outpatient priming clinic, reducing the overall cost savings to $156 per woman.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall cost savings were not statistically significant in women who were randomised to or received the intervention. However, the trend in cost savings favoured outpatient priming.

Cost-effectiveness of induction of labour at term with a Foley catheter compared to vaginal prostaglandin E₂ gel (PROBAAT trial)

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.

Nitric oxide donors for cervical ripening and induction of labour

BACKGROUND

Sometimes it is necessary to bring on labour artificially because of safety concerns for the mother or baby. This review is one of a series of reviews of methods of labour induction using a standardised protocol.Induction of labour occurs in approximately 20% of pregnancies in the UK. The ideal agent for induction of labour would induce cervical ripening without causing uterine contractions. Currently most commonly used cervical ripening or induction agents result in uterine activity or contractions, or both. Cervical ripening without uterine contractility could occur safely in an outpatient setting and it may be expected that this would result in greater maternal satisfaction and lower costs.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of nitric oxide (NO) donors for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour, in comparison with placebo or no treatment or other treatments from a predefined hierarchy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 December 2010) and the reference lists of trial reports and reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Clinical trials comparing NO donors for cervical ripening or labour induction to other methods listed above it on a predefined list of methods of labour induction. The trials include some form of random allocation to either group; and report one or more of the prestated outcomes. NO donors (isosorbide mononitrate, nitroglycerin and sodium nitroprusside) are compared to other methods listed above it on a predefined list of methods of labour induction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This review is part of a series of reviews focusing on methods of induction of labour. Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We considered 19 trials; we included 10 (including a total of 1889 women) trials, excluded eight trials and one trial report is awaiting classification. Included studies compared NO donors to placebo, vaginal prostaglandin E2, intracervical PGE2 and vaginal misoprostol. All included studies were of a generally high standard with a low risk of bias.There are very limited data available to compare nitric oxide donors to any other induction agent. There is no evidence of any difference between any of the prespecified outcomes when comparing NO donors to other induction agents, with the exception of an increase in maternal side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

NO donors do not appear currently to be a useful tool in the process of induction of labour. More studies are required to examine how NO donors may work alongside established induction of labour protocols, especially those based in outpatient settings.

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.

Different methods for the induction of labour in outpatient settings

BACKGROUND

Induction of labour is carried out for a variety of indications and using a range of pharmacological, mechanical and other methods. For women at low risk, some methods of induction of labour may be suitable for use in outpatient settings.

OBJECTIVES

To examine pharmacological and mechanical interventions to induce labour in outpatient settings in terms of feasibility, effectiveness, maternal satisfaction, healthcare costs and, where information is available, safety. The review complements existing reviews on labour induction examining effectiveness and safety.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (December 2009) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials examining outpatient cervical ripening or induction of labour with pharmacological agents or mechanical methods.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed eligible papers for risk of bias. We checked all data after entry into review manager software.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 studies with 2616 women examining different methods of induction of labour where women received treatment at home or were sent home after initial treatment and monitoring in hospital.Studies examined vaginal and intracervical PGE(2), vaginal and oral misoprostol, isosorbide mononitrate, mifepristone, oestrogens, and acupuncture. Overall, the results demonstrate that outpatient induction of labour is feasible and that important adverse events are rare. There was no strong evidence that agents used to induce labour in outpatient settings had an impact (positive or negative) on maternal or neonatal health. There was some evidence that, compared to placebo or no treatment, induction agents reduced the need for further interventions to induce labour, and shortened the interval from intervention to birth. We were unable to pool results on outcomes relating to progress in labour as studies tended to measure a very broad range of outcomes.There was no evidence that induction agents increased interventions in labour such as operative deliveries. Only two studies provided information on women's views about the induction process, and overall there was very little information on the costs to health service providers of different methods of labour induction in outpatient settings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Induction of labour in outpatient settings appears feasible. We do not have sufficient evidence to know which induction methods are preferred by women, or the interventions that are most effective and safe to use in outpatient settings.