Comparing induction of labour with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter at term: cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled multi-centre non-inferiority trial

M. L.G. ten Eikelder, G. J. van Baaren, K. Oude Rengerink, M. Jozwiak, J. W. de Leeuw, G. Kleiverda, I. Evers, K. de Boer, J. Brons, K. W.M. Bloemenkamp, Ben Mol

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To assess the costs of labour induction with oral misoprostol versus Foley catheter. Design: Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial. Setting: Obstetric departments of six tertiary and 23 secondary care hospitals in the Netherlands. Population: Women with a viable term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, intact membranes, an unfavourable cervix (Bishop score <6) without a previous caesarean section, were randomised for labour induction with oral misoprostol (n = 924) or Foley catheter (n = 921). Methods: We performed economic analysis from a hospital perspective. We estimated direct medical costs associated with healthcare utilisation from randomisation until discharge. The robustness of our findings was evaluated in sensitivity analyses. Main outcome measures: Mean costs and differences were calculated per women induced with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter. Results: Mean costs per woman in the oral misoprostol group and Foley catheter group were €4470 versus €4158, respectively [mean difference €312, 95% confidence interval (CI) –€508 to €1063]. Multiple sensitivity analyses did not change these conclusions. However, if cervical ripening for low-risk pregnancies in the Foley catheter group was carried out in an outpatient setting, with admittance to labour ward only at start of active labour, the difference would be €4470 versus €3489, respectively (mean difference €981, 95% CI €225–1817). Conclusions: Oral misoprostol and Foley catheter generate comparable costs. Cervical ripening outside labour ward with a Foley catheter could potentially save almost €1000 per woman. Tweetable abstract: Oral misoprostol or Foley catheter for induction of labour generates comparable costs.

LanguageEnglish
Pages375-383
Number of pages9
JournalBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Volume125
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2018

Keywords

  • Cost-effectiveness
  • Foley catheter
  • induction of labour
  • oral misoprostol

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Cite this

ten Eikelder, M. L.G. ; van Baaren, G. J. ; Oude Rengerink, K. ; Jozwiak, M. ; de Leeuw, J. W. ; Kleiverda, G. ; Evers, I. ; de Boer, K. ; Brons, J. ; Bloemenkamp, K. W.M. ; Mol, Ben. / Comparing induction of labour with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter at term : cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled multi-centre non-inferiority trial. In: BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2018 ; Vol. 125, No. 3. pp. 375-383.
@article{0f010dbd25d643f5a489d336153549d6,
title = "Comparing induction of labour with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter at term: cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled multi-centre non-inferiority trial",
abstract = "Objective: To assess the costs of labour induction with oral misoprostol versus Foley catheter. Design: Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial. Setting: Obstetric departments of six tertiary and 23 secondary care hospitals in the Netherlands. Population: Women with a viable term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, intact membranes, an unfavourable cervix (Bishop score <6) without a previous caesarean section, were randomised for labour induction with oral misoprostol (n = 924) or Foley catheter (n = 921). Methods: We performed economic analysis from a hospital perspective. We estimated direct medical costs associated with healthcare utilisation from randomisation until discharge. The robustness of our findings was evaluated in sensitivity analyses. Main outcome measures: Mean costs and differences were calculated per women induced with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter. Results: Mean costs per woman in the oral misoprostol group and Foley catheter group were €4470 versus €4158, respectively [mean difference €312, 95{\%} confidence interval (CI) –€508 to €1063]. Multiple sensitivity analyses did not change these conclusions. However, if cervical ripening for low-risk pregnancies in the Foley catheter group was carried out in an outpatient setting, with admittance to labour ward only at start of active labour, the difference would be €4470 versus €3489, respectively (mean difference €981, 95{\%} CI €225–1817). Conclusions: Oral misoprostol and Foley catheter generate comparable costs. Cervical ripening outside labour ward with a Foley catheter could potentially save almost €1000 per woman. Tweetable abstract: Oral misoprostol or Foley catheter for induction of labour generates comparable costs.",
keywords = "Cost-effectiveness, Foley catheter, induction of labour, oral misoprostol",
author = "{ten Eikelder}, {M. L.G.} and {van Baaren}, {G. J.} and {Oude Rengerink}, K. and M. Jozwiak and {de Leeuw}, {J. W.} and G. Kleiverda and I. Evers and {de Boer}, K. and J. Brons and Bloemenkamp, {K. W.M.} and Ben Mol",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/1471-0528.14706",
language = "English",
volume = "125",
pages = "375--383",
journal = "BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology",
issn = "1470-0328",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

ten Eikelder, MLG, van Baaren, GJ, Oude Rengerink, K, Jozwiak, M, de Leeuw, JW, Kleiverda, G, Evers, I, de Boer, K, Brons, J, Bloemenkamp, KWM & Mol, B 2018, 'Comparing induction of labour with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter at term: cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled multi-centre non-inferiority trial', BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 125, no. 3, pp. 375-383. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14706

Comparing induction of labour with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter at term : cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled multi-centre non-inferiority trial. / ten Eikelder, M. L.G.; van Baaren, G. J.; Oude Rengerink, K.; Jozwiak, M.; de Leeuw, J. W.; Kleiverda, G.; Evers, I.; de Boer, K.; Brons, J.; Bloemenkamp, K. W.M.; Mol, Ben.

In: BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Vol. 125, No. 3, 01.02.2018, p. 375-383.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing induction of labour with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter at term

T2 - BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

AU - ten Eikelder, M. L.G.

AU - van Baaren, G. J.

AU - Oude Rengerink, K.

AU - Jozwiak, M.

AU - de Leeuw, J. W.

AU - Kleiverda, G.

AU - Evers, I.

AU - de Boer, K.

AU - Brons, J.

AU - Bloemenkamp, K. W.M.

AU - Mol, Ben

PY - 2018/2/1

Y1 - 2018/2/1

N2 - Objective: To assess the costs of labour induction with oral misoprostol versus Foley catheter. Design: Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial. Setting: Obstetric departments of six tertiary and 23 secondary care hospitals in the Netherlands. Population: Women with a viable term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, intact membranes, an unfavourable cervix (Bishop score <6) without a previous caesarean section, were randomised for labour induction with oral misoprostol (n = 924) or Foley catheter (n = 921). Methods: We performed economic analysis from a hospital perspective. We estimated direct medical costs associated with healthcare utilisation from randomisation until discharge. The robustness of our findings was evaluated in sensitivity analyses. Main outcome measures: Mean costs and differences were calculated per women induced with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter. Results: Mean costs per woman in the oral misoprostol group and Foley catheter group were €4470 versus €4158, respectively [mean difference €312, 95% confidence interval (CI) –€508 to €1063]. Multiple sensitivity analyses did not change these conclusions. However, if cervical ripening for low-risk pregnancies in the Foley catheter group was carried out in an outpatient setting, with admittance to labour ward only at start of active labour, the difference would be €4470 versus €3489, respectively (mean difference €981, 95% CI €225–1817). Conclusions: Oral misoprostol and Foley catheter generate comparable costs. Cervical ripening outside labour ward with a Foley catheter could potentially save almost €1000 per woman. Tweetable abstract: Oral misoprostol or Foley catheter for induction of labour generates comparable costs.

AB - Objective: To assess the costs of labour induction with oral misoprostol versus Foley catheter. Design: Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial. Setting: Obstetric departments of six tertiary and 23 secondary care hospitals in the Netherlands. Population: Women with a viable term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, intact membranes, an unfavourable cervix (Bishop score <6) without a previous caesarean section, were randomised for labour induction with oral misoprostol (n = 924) or Foley catheter (n = 921). Methods: We performed economic analysis from a hospital perspective. We estimated direct medical costs associated with healthcare utilisation from randomisation until discharge. The robustness of our findings was evaluated in sensitivity analyses. Main outcome measures: Mean costs and differences were calculated per women induced with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter. Results: Mean costs per woman in the oral misoprostol group and Foley catheter group were €4470 versus €4158, respectively [mean difference €312, 95% confidence interval (CI) –€508 to €1063]. Multiple sensitivity analyses did not change these conclusions. However, if cervical ripening for low-risk pregnancies in the Foley catheter group was carried out in an outpatient setting, with admittance to labour ward only at start of active labour, the difference would be €4470 versus €3489, respectively (mean difference €981, 95% CI €225–1817). Conclusions: Oral misoprostol and Foley catheter generate comparable costs. Cervical ripening outside labour ward with a Foley catheter could potentially save almost €1000 per woman. Tweetable abstract: Oral misoprostol or Foley catheter for induction of labour generates comparable costs.

KW - Cost-effectiveness

KW - Foley catheter

KW - induction of labour

KW - oral misoprostol

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85040784032&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1471-0528.14706

DO - 10.1111/1471-0528.14706

M3 - Article

VL - 125

SP - 375

EP - 383

JO - BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

JF - BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

SN - 1470-0328

IS - 3

ER -