Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic testing strategies including cervical-length measurement and fibronectin testing in women with symptoms of preterm labor.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of combining cervical-length (CL) measurement and fetal fibronectin (fFN) testing in women with symptoms of preterm labor between 24 and 34 weeks' gestation. METHODS: This was a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating seven test-treatment strategies based on CL measurement and/or fFN testing in women with symptoms of preterm labor from a societal perspective, in which neonatal outcomes and costs were weighted. Estimates of disease prevalence, test accuracy and costs were based on two recently performed nationwide cohort studies in The Netherlands. RESULTS: Strategies using fFN testing and CL measurement separately to predict preterm delivery are associated with higher costs and incidence of adverse neonatal outcomes compared with strategies that combine both tests. Additional fFN testing when CL is 15-30 mm was considered cost effective, leading to a cost saving of €3919 per woman when compared with a treat-all strategy, with a small deterioration in neonatal health outcomes, namely one additional perinatal death and 21 adverse outcomes per 10 000 women with signs of preterm labor (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios €39 million and €1.9 million, respectively). Implementing this strategy in The Netherlands, a country with about 180 000 deliveries annually, could lead to an annual cost saving of between €2.4 million and €7.6 million, with only a small deterioration in neonatal health outcomes. CONCLUSION: In women with symptoms of preterm labor at 24-34 weeks' gestation, performing additional fFN testing when CL is between 15 and 30 mm is a viable and cost-saving strategy. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

The impact of obesity on outcomes of midwife-led pregnancy and childbirth in a primary care population: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of obesity on the likelihood of remaining in midwife-led care throughout pregnancy and childbirth. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a prospective cohort study. SETTING: Dutch midwife-led practices. POPULATION: A cohort of 1369 women eligible for midwife-led care after their first antenatal visit. METHODS: First-trimester body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight measured at booking divided by height squared. Obstetric data were retrieved from medical records. Multiple logistic regressions were performed to examine the effects of BMI classification on midwife-led pregnancies and childbirths. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentages of women remaining in midwife-led care throughout pregnancy and throughout childbirth. RESULTS: Of women in obesity classes II and III, 55% remained in midwife-led care throughout pregnancy and 30% remained in midwife-led care throughout birth. Compared with women of normal weight, women in obesity classes II and III had fewer midwife-led pregnancies (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21-0.69), and women who were overweight or in obesity class I had fewer midwife-led childbirths (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44-0.90; OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.29-0.84, respectively). Compared with women of normal weight, women who were obese had higher referral rates for hypertensive disorders (4 versus 14%), prolonged labour (4.6 versus 10.4%), and intrapartum pain relief (4 versus 10.4%). The women who were eligible for midwife-led birth and who were overweight or obese, had no more urgent referrals than women of normal weight. Women who were obese and who completed a midwife-led birth had no more adverse outcomes than women of normal weight, with the exception of higher rates of large for gestational age (LGA) babies (>97.7 centile; 12.1%, versus 1.9% in normal weight and versus 3.3% in overweight women). CONCLUSIONS: Although fewer women who were obese remain in midwife-led care during pregnancy and childbirth, there was no increased risk of unfavourable birth outcomes for women who were obese and eligible for a midwife-led birth when compared with women of normal weight. This indicates that when primary care midwives use a risk assessment tool throughout pregnancy and childbirth they are able to safely assign women who are obese to either midwife-led or obstetrician-led care.