Uterine artery embolisation or myomectomy for women with uterine fibroids wishing to avoid hysterectomy: a cost-utility analysis of the FEMME trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of uterine artery embolisation (UAE) and myomectomy for women with symptomatic uterine fibroids wishing to avoid hysterectomy. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside the FEMME randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 29 UK hospitals. POPULATION: Premenopausal women who had symptomatic uterine fibroids amenable to UAE or myomectomy wishing to avoid hysterectomy. 254 women were randomised to UAE (127) and myomectomy (127). METHODS: A within-trial cost-utility analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK NHS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) measured using the EuroQoL EQ-5D-3L, combined with costs to estimate cost-effectiveness over 2 and 4 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Over a 2-year time horizon, UAE was associated with higher mean costs (difference £645; 95% CI -1381 to 2580) and lower QALYs (difference -0.09; 95% CI -0.11 to -0.04) when compared with myomectomy. Similar results were observed over the 4-year time horizon. Thus, UAE was dominated by myomectomy. Results of the sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base case results for both years. Over 2 years, UAE was associated with higher costs (difference £456; 95% CI -1823 to 3164) and lower QALYs (difference -0.06; 95% CI -0.11 to -0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Myomectomy is a cost-effective option for the treatment of uterine fibroids. The differences in costs and QALYs are small. Women should be fully informed and have the option to choose between the two procedures. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Fully informed women with uterine fibroids should have a choice between uterine artery embolisation or myomectomy.

Cost-effectiveness of mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriage: an economic evaluation based on the MifeMiso trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of mifepristone and misoprostol (MifeMiso) compared with misoprostol only for the medical management of a missed miscarriage. DESIGN: Within-trial economic evaluation and model-based analysis to set the findings in the context of the wider economic evidence for a range of comparators. Incremental costs and outcomes were calculated using nonparametric bootstrapping and reported using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Analyses were performed from the perspective of the UK's National Health Service (NHS). SETTING: Twenty-eight UK NHS early pregnancy units. SAMPLE: A cohort of 711 women aged 16-39 years with ultrasound evidence of a missed miscarriage. METHODS: Treatment with mifepristone and misoprostol or with matched placebo and misoprostol tablets. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per additional successfully managed miscarriage and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: For the within-trial analysis, MifeMiso intervention resulted in an absolute effect difference of 6.6% (95% CI 0.7-12.5%) per successfully managed miscarriage and a QALYs difference of 0.04% (95% CI -0.01 to 0.1%). The average cost per successfully managed miscarriage was lower in the MifeMiso arm than in the placebo and misoprostol arm, with a cost saving of £182 (95% CI £26-£338). Hence, the MifeMiso intervention dominated the use of misoprostol alone. The model-based analysis showed that the MifeMiso intervention is preferable, compared with expectant management, and this is the current medical management strategy. However, the model-based evidence suggests that the intervention is a less effective but less costly strategy than surgical management. CONCLUSIONS: The within-trial analysis found that based on cost-effectiveness grounds, the MifeMiso intervention is likely to be recommended by decision makers for the medical management of women presenting with a missed miscarriage. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: The combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective and less costly than misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriages.

The cost-effectiveness of progesterone in preventing miscarriages in women with early pregnancy bleeding: an economic evaluation based on the PRISM trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of progesterone compared with placebo in preventing pregnancy loss in women with early pregnancy vaginal bleeding. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a large multi-centre randomised placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Forty-eight UK NHS early pregnancy units. POPULATION: Four thousand one hundred and fifty-three women aged 16-39 years with bleeding in early pregnancy and ultrasound evidence of an intrauterine sac. METHODS: An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from National Health Service (NHS) and NHS and Personal Social Services perspectives. Subgroup analyses were carried out on women with one or more and three or more previous miscarriages. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per additional live birth at ≥34 weeks of gestation. RESULTS: Progesterone intervention led to an effect difference of 0.022 (95% CI -0.004 to 0.050) in the trial. The mean cost per woman in the progesterone group was £76 (95% CI -£559 to £711) more than the mean cost in the placebo group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for progesterone compared with placebo was £3305 per additional live birth. For women with at least one previous miscarriage, progesterone was more effective than placebo with an effect difference of 0.055 (95% CI 0.014-0.096) and this was associated with a cost saving of £322 (95% CI -£1318 to £673). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that progesterone is associated with a small positive impact and a small additional cost. Both subgroup analyses were more favourable, especially for women who had one or more previous miscarriages. Given available evidence, progesterone is likely to be a cost-effective intervention, particularly for women with previous miscarriage(s). TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Progesterone treatment is likely to be cost-effective in women with early pregnancy bleeding and a history of miscarriage.

Pravastatin for early-onset pre-eclampsia: a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Women with pre-eclampsia have elevated circulating levels of soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 (sFlt-1). Statins can reduce sFlt-1 from cultured cells and improve pregnancy outcome in animals with a pre-eclampsia-like syndrome. We investigated the effect of pravastatin on plasma sFlt-1 levels during pre-eclampsia. DESIGN: Blinded (clinician and participant), proof of principle, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Fifteen UK maternity units. POPULATION: We used a minimisation algorithm to assign 62 women with early-onset pre-eclampsia (24+0 -31+6  weeks of gestation) to receive pravastatin 40 mg daily (n = 30) or matched placebo (n = 32), from randomisation to childbirth. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Difference in mean plasma sFlt-1 levels over the first 3 days following randomisation. RESULTS: The difference in the mean maternal plasma sFlt-1 levels over the first 3 days after randomisation between the pravastatin (n = 27) and placebo (n = 29) groups was 292 pg/ml (95% CI -1175 to 592; P = 0.5), and over days 1-14 was 48 pg/ml (95% CI -1009 to 913; P = 0.9). Women who received pravastatin had a similar length of pregnancy following randomisation compared with those who received placebo (hazard ratio 0.84; 95% CI 0.50-1.40; P = 0.6). The median time from randomisation to childbirth was 9 days (interquartile range [IQR] 5-14 days) for the pravastatin group and 7 days (IQR 4-11 days) for the placebo group. There were three perinatal deaths in the placebo-treated group and no deaths or serious adverse events attributable to pravastatin. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that pravastatin lowered maternal plasma sFlt-1 levels once early-onset pre-eclampsia had developed. Pravastatin appears to have no adverse perinatal effects. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Pravastatin does not improve maternal plasma sFlt-1 or placental growth factor levels following a diagnosis of early preterm pre-eclampsia #clinicaltrial finds.

Standard- or high-dose oxytocin for nulliparous women with confirmed delay in labour: quantitative and qualitative results from a pilot randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Evidence suggests that a high dose of oxytocin for nulliparous women at 37-42 weeks of gestation with confirmed delay in labour increases spontaneous vaginal birth. We undertook a pilot study to test the feasibility of this treatment. DESIGN: Pilot double-blind randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Three teaching hospitals in the UK. POPULATION: A total of 94 consenting nulliparous women at term with confirmed delay in labour were recruited, and 18 were interviewed. METHODS: Women were assigned to either a standard (2 mU/min, increasing every 30 minutes to 32 mU/minute) or a high-dose regimen (4 mU/minute, increasing every 30 minutes to 64 mU/minutes) oxytocin by computer-generated randomisation. Simple descriptive statistics were used, as the sample size was insufficient to evaluate clinical outcomes. The constant comparative method was used to analyse the interviews. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The main outcome measures: number of women eligible; maternal and neonatal birth; safety; maternal psychological outcomes and experiences; health-related quality of life outcomes using validated tools and data on health service resource use; incidence of suspected delay of labour (cervical dilatation of <2 cm after 4 hours, once labour is established); and incidence of confirmed delay of labour (progress of <1 cm on repeat vaginal examination after a period of 2 hours). RESULTS: We successfully developed systems to recruit eligible women in labour and to collect data. Rates of spontaneous vaginal birth (10/47 versus 12/47, RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.6-2.5) and caesarean section (15/47 versus 17/47, RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.6-2.0) were increased, and rates of instrumental birth were reduced (21/47 versus 17/47, RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5-1.3). No evidence of increased harm for either mother or baby was found. The incidences of suspected delay (14%) and confirmed delay (11%) in labour were less than anticipated. Of those who did not go on to have delayed labour confirmed, all except one woman gave birth vaginally. CONCLUSIONS: A pilot trial assessing the efficacy of high-dose oxytocin was feasible, but uncertainty remains, highlighting the need for a large definitive trial. The implementation of national guidance of suspected and confirmed delay in labour is likely to reduce intervention.