Oxytocin in Uniject Disposable Auto-Disable Injection System versus Standard Use for the Prevention of Postpartum Hemorrhage in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations and Budget Impact Analyses to Inform Healthcare Decision-Making in Central America

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the quality, quantity and disease areas analysed by health economic research that inform healthcare decision-making in Central America. This study aimed to review the existing health economic evaluations (HEEs) and budget impact analyses (BIAs) evidence in Central America based on scope and reporting quality.

METHODS

HEEs and BIAs published from 2000 to April 2021 were searched in five electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature), EconLIT and OVID Global Health. Two reviewers assessed titles, abstracts and full texts of studies for eligibility. The quality appraisal for the reporting was based on La Torre and colleagues' version of the Drummond checklist and the ISPOR good practices for BIA. For each country, we correlated the number of studies by disease area with their respective burden of disease to identify under-researched health areas.

RESULTS

102 publications were eligible for this review. Ninety-four publications reported a HEE, six publications reported a BIA, and two studies reported both a HEE and a BIA. Costa Rica had the highest number of publications (n = 28, 27.5%), followed by Guatemala (n = 25, 24.5%). Cancer and respiratory infections were the most common types of disease studied. Diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney diseases, and mental disorders were under-researched relative to their disease burden in most of the countries. The overall mean quality reporting score for HEE and BIA studies were 71/119 points (60%) and 7/10 points (70%), respectively; however, these assessments were made on different scales.

CONCLUSION

In Central America, health economic research is sparse and is considered as suboptimal quality for reporting. The findings reported information useful to other low- and middle-income countries with similar advances in the application of economics to promote health policy decision-making.

Uterotonic drugs to prevent postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. Prophylactic uterotonic drugs can reduce blood loss and are routinely recommended. There are several uterotonic drugs for preventing PPH, but it is still debatable which drug or combination of drugs is the most effective.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the most effective and cost-effective uterotonic drug(s) to prevent PPH, and generate a ranking according to their effectiveness and side-effect profile.

METHODS

The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (1 June 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO)'s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) were searched for unpublished trial reports (30 June 2015). In addition, reference lists of retrieved studies (updated October 2017) were searched for randomised trials evaluating uterotonic drugs for preventing PPH. The study estimated relative effects and rankings for preventing PPH, defined as blood loss of ≥ 500 ml and ≥ 1000 ml. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis were performed to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available drugs and combinations thereof [ergometrine, misoprostol (Cytotec^®; Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA), misoprostol plus oxytocin (Syntocinon^®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland), carbetocin (Pabal^®; Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Saint-Prex, Switzerland), ergometrine plus oxytocin (Syntometrine^®; Alliance Pharma plc, Chippenham, UK), oxytocin, and a placebo or no treatment]. Primary outcomes were stratified according to the mode of birth, prior risk of PPH, health-care setting, drug dosage, regimen and route of drug administration. Sensitivity analyses were performed according to study quality and funding source, among others. A model-based economic evaluation compared the relative cost-effectiveness separately for vaginal births and caesareans with or without including side effects.

RESULTS

From 137 randomised trials and 87,466 women, ergometrine plus oxytocin, carbetocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin were found to reduce the risk of PPH blood loss of ≥ 500 ml compared with the standard drug, oxytocin [ergometrine plus oxytocin: risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.83; carbetocin: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00; misoprostol plus oxytocin: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.6 to 0.9]. Each of these three strategies had 100% cumulative probability of being ranked first, second or third most effective. Oxytocin was ranked fourth, with an almost 0% cumulative probability of being ranked in the top three. Similar rankings were noted for the reduction of PPH blood loss of ≥ 1000 ml (ergometrine plus oxytocin: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.95; carbetocin: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.28; misoprostol plus oxytocin: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.14), and most secondary outcomes. Ergometrine plus oxytocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin had the poorest ranking for side effects. Carbetocin had a favourable side-effect profile, which was similar to oxytocin. However, the analysis was restricted to high-quality studies, carbetocin lost its ranking and was comparable to oxytocin. The relative cost-effectiveness of the alternative strategies is inconclusive, and the results are affected by both the uncertainty and inconsistency in the data reported on adverse events. For vaginal delivery, when assuming no adverse events, ergometrine plus oxytocin is less costly and more effective than all strategies except carbetocin. The strategy of carbetocin is both more effective and more costly than all other strategies. When taking adverse events into consideration, all prevention strategies, except oxytocin, are more costly and less effective than carbetocin. For delivery by caesarean section, with and without adverse events, the relative cost-effectiveness is different, again because of the uncertainty in the available data.

LIMITATIONS

There was considerable uncertainty in findings within the planned subgroup analyses, and subgroup effects cannot be ruled out.

CONCLUSIONS

Ergometrine plus oxytocin, carbetocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin are more effective uterotonic drug strategies for preventing PPH than the current standard, oxytocin. Ergometrine plus oxytocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin cause significant side effects. Carbetocin has a favourable side-effect profile, which was similar to oxytocin. However, most carbetocin trials are small and of poor quality. There is a need for a large high-quality trial comparing carbetocin with oxytocin; such a trial is currently being conducted by the WHO. The relative cost-effectiveness is inconclusive, and results are affected by uncertainty and inconsistency in adverse events data.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015020005; Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group (substudy) reference number 0871; PROSPERO-Cochrane (substudy) reference number CRD42015026568; and sponsor reference number ERN_13-1414 (University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK).

FUNDING

Funding for this study was provided by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme in a research award to the University of Birmingham and supported by the UK charity Ammalife (UK-registered charity 1120236). The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data synthesis, interpretation or writing of the report.

Uterotonic Drugs for the Prevention of Postpartum Haemorrhage: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the relative cost effectiveness for the full range of uterotonic drugs available for preventing postpartum haemorrhage (PPH).

METHODS

A model-based economic evaluation was constructed using effectiveness data from a network meta-analysis, and supplemented by the literature. A UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective was adopted for the analysis, which is based on UK costs from published sources. The primary outcome measure is cost per case of PPH avoided (≥ 500 mL blood loss), with secondary outcome measures of cost per case of severe PPH avoided (≥ 1000 mL) and cost per major outcome (surgery) averted also being analysed.

RESULTS

Carbetocin is shown to be the most effective strategy. Excluding adverse events, 'ergometrine plus oxytocin' was shown to be the least costly strategy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for prevention of PPH with carbetocin compared with prevention with 'ergometrine plus oxytocin' was £1889 per case of PPH ≥ 500 mL avoided; £30,013 per case of PPH ≥ 1000 mL avoided; and £1,172,378 per major outcome averted. Including adverse events in the analysis showed oxytocin to be the least costly strategy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for prevention of PPH with carbetocin compared with prevention with oxytocin was £928 per case of PPH ≥ 500 mL avoided; £22,900 per case of PPH ≥ 1000 mL avoided; and £894,514 per major outcome averted.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest carbetocin, oxytocin and 'ergometrine plus oxytocin' could all be favourable options for being the most cost-effective strategy for preventing PPH. Carbetocin could be the preferred choice, especially if the price of carbetocin decreased. Mixed findings mean a clear-cut conclusion cannot be made as to which uterotonic is the most cost effective. Future research should focus on collecting more robust evidence on the probability of having adverse events from the uterotonic drugs, and on adapting the model for low- and middle-income countries.

Oxytocin for preventing postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) in non-facility birth settings

BACKGROUND

Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the single leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. Most of the deaths associated with PPH occur in resource-poor settings where effective methods of prevention and treatment - such as oxytocin - are not accessible because many births still occur at home, or in community settings, far from a health facility. Likewise, most of the evidence supporting oxytocin effectiveness comes from hospital settings in high-income countries, mainly because of the need of well-organised care for its administration and monitoring. Easier methods for oxytocin administration have been developed for use in resource-poor settings, but as far as we know, its effectiveness has not been assessed in a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of oxytocin provided in non-facility birth settings by any way in the third stage of labour to prevent PPH.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov (12 November 2015), and reference lists of retrieved reports.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published, unpublished or ongoing randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing the administration of oxytocin with no intervention, or usual/standard care for the management of the third stage of labour in non-facility birth settings were considered for inclusion.Quasi-randomised controlled trials and randomised controlled trials published in abstract form only were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data using an agreed data extraction form. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one cluster-randomised trial conducted in four rural districts in Ghana that randomised 28 community health officers (CHOs) (serving 2404 potentially eligible pregnant women) to the intervention group and 26 CHOs (serving 3515 potentially eligible pregnant women) to the control group. Overall, the trial had a high risk of bias. CHOs delivered the intervention in the experimental group (injection of 10 IU (international units) of oxytocin in the thigh one minute following birth using a prefilled, auto-disposable syringe). In the control group, CHOs did not provide this prophylactic injection to the women they observed. CHOs had no midwifery skills and did not in any way manage the birth. All other CHO activities (outcome measurement, data collection, and early treatment and referral when necessary) were identical across the control and oxytocin CHOs.Although only one of the nine cases of severe PPH (blood loss greater or equal to 1000 mL) occurred in the oxytocin group, the effect estimate for this outcome was very imprecise and it is uncertain whether the intervention prevents severe PPH (risk ratio (RR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.30; 1570 women (very low-quality evidence)). Similarly, because of the lack of cases of severe maternal morbidity (e.g. uterine rupture) and maternal deaths, it was not possible to obtain effect estimates for those outcomes (both very low-quality evidence).Oxytocin compared with the control group decreased the incidence of PPH (> 500 mL) in both our unadjusted (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.81; 1569 women) and adjusted (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.90; 1174 women (both low-quality evidence)) analyses. There was little or no difference between the oxytocin and control groups on the rates of transfer or referral of the mother to a healthcare facility (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.56; 1586 women (low-quality evidence)), stillbirths (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.40; 2006 infants (low-quality evidence)); andearly infant deaths (0 to three days) (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.07; 1969 infants (low-quality evidence)). There were no cases of needle-stick injury or any other maternal major or minor adverse event or unanticipated harmful event. There were no cases of oxytocin use during labour.There were no data reported for some of this review's secondary outcomes: manual removal of placenta, maternal anaemia, neonatal death within 28 days, neonatal transfer to health facility for advanced care, breastfeeding rates. Similarly, the women's or the provider's satisfaction with the intervention was not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain if oxytocin administered by CHO in non-facility settings compared with a control group reduces the incidence of severe PPH (>1000 mL), severe maternal morbidity or maternal deaths. However, the intervention probably decreases the incidence of PPH (> 500 mL).The quality of the one trial included in this review was limited because of the risk of attrition and recruitment biases related to limitations in the follow-up of pregnant women in both arms of the trials and some baseline imbalance on the size of babies at birth. Additionally, there was serious imprecision of the effect estimates for most of the primary outcomes mainly because of the size of the trial, very few or no events and CIs around both relative and absolute estimates of effect that include both appreciable benefit and appreciable harm.Although the trial presented data both for primary and secondary outcomes, it seemed to be underpowered to detect differences in the primary outcomes that are the ones more relevant for making judgments about the potential applicability of the intervention in other settings (especially severe PPH).Therefore, taking into account the extreme setting where the intervention was implemented, the limited role of the CHO in the trial and the lack of power for detecting effects on primary (relevant) outcomes, the applicability of the evidence found seems to be rather limited.Further well-executed and adequately-powered randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of using oxytocin in pre-filled injection devices or other new delivery systems (spray-dried ultrafine formulation of oxytocin) on severe PPH are urgently needed. Likewise, other important outcomes like possible adverse events and acceptability of the intervention by mothers and other community stakeholders should also be assessed.

Cost-effectiveness of two interventions for the prevention of postpartum hemorrhage in Senegal

OBJECTIVE

To compare, at the community level, the cost-effectiveness of oxytocin and misoprostol for the prevention of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH).

METHODS

The present cost-effectiveness study used data collected during a randomized trial that compared the prophylactic effectiveness of misoprostol and oxytocin for the prevention of PPH in a rural setting in Senegal between June 6 and September 21 2013. The two interventions were compared, with referral to a higher level facility owing to PPH being the outcome measure. The costs and effects were calculated for two hypothetical cohorts of patients delivering during a 1-year period, with each cohort receiving one intervention. A comparison with a third hypothetical cohort receiving the current standard of care was included. A sensitivity analysis was performed to estimate the impact of variations in model assumptions.

RESULTS

The cost per PPH referral averted was US$ 38.96 for misoprostol and US$ 119.15 for oxytocin. In all the scenarios modeled the misoprostol intervention dominated, except in the worst-case scenario, where the oxytocin intervention demonstrated slightly better cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

The use of misoprostol for PPH prophylaxis could be cost effective and improve maternal outcomes in low-income settings.