Cost effectiveness of nifedipine compared with atosiban in the treatment of threatened preterm birth (APOSTEL III trial).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment with nifedipine compared with atosiban in women with threatened preterm birth. DESIGN: An economic analysis alongside a randomised clinical trial (the APOSTEL III study). SETTING: Obstetric departments of 12 tertiary hospitals and seven secondary hospitals in the Netherlands and Belgium. POPULATION: Women with threatened preterm birth between 25 and 34 weeks of gestation, randomised for tocolysis with either nifedipine or atosiban. METHODS: We performed an economic analysis from a societal perspective. We estimated costs from randomisation until discharge. Analyses for singleton and multiple pregnancies were performed separately. The robustness of our findings was evaluated in sensitivity analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean costs and differences were calculated per woman treated with nifedipine or atosiban. Health outcomes were expressed as the prevalence of a composite of adverse perinatal outcomes. RESULTS: Mean costs per patients were significantly lower in the nifedipine group [singleton pregnancies: €34,897 versus €43,376, mean difference (MD) -€8479 [95% confidence interval (CI) -€14,327 to -€2016)]; multiple pregnancies: €90,248 versus €102,292, MD -€12,044 (95% CI -€21,607 to € -1671). There was a non-significantly higher death rate in the nifedipine group. The difference in costs was mainly driven by a lower neonatal intensive care unit admission (NICU) rate in the nifedipine group. CONCLUSION: Treatment with nifedipine in women with threatened preterm birth results in lower costs when compared with treatment with atosiban. However, the safety of nifedipine warrants further investigation. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: In women with threatened preterm birth, tocolysis using nifedipine results in lower costs when compared with atosiban.

Hysterectomy by transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus laparoscopy as a day-care procedure: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare hysterectomy by transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) versus total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) as a day-care procedure. DESIGN: Parallel group, 1:1 randomised single-centre single-blinded trial, designed as a non-inferiority study with a margin of 15%. SETTING: Belgian teaching hospital. POPULATION: Women aged 18-70 years scheduled to undergo hysterectomy for benign indications. METHODS: Randomisation to TLH (control group) or vNOTES (experimental group). Stratification according to uterine volume. Blinding of participants and outcome assessors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was hysterectomy by the allocated technique. We measured the proportion of women leaving within 12 hours after hysterectomy and the length of hospital stay as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: We randomly assigned 70 women to vNOTES (n = 35) or TLH (n = 35). The primary endpoint was always reached in both groups: there were no conversions. We performed a sensitivity analysis for the primary outcome, assuming one conversion in the vNOTES group and no conversions in the TLH group: the one-sided 95% upper limit for the differences in proportions of conversion was estimated as 7.5%, which is below the predefined non-inferiority margin. More women left the hospital within 12 hours after surgery after vNOTES: 77 versus 43%, difference 34% (95% CI 13-56%), P = 0.007. The hospital stay was shorter after vNOTES: 0.8 versus 1.3 days, mean difference -0.5 days, (95% CI -0.98 to -0.02), P = 0.004. CONCLUSIONS: vNOTES is non-inferior to TLH for successfully performing hysterectomy without conversion. Compared with TLH, vNOTES may allow more women to be treated in a day-care setting. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: RCT: vNOTES is just as good as laparoscopy for successful hysterectomy without conversion but allows more day-care surgery.

An economic analysis of immediate delivery and expectant monitoring in women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, between 34 and 37 weeks of gestation (HYPITAT-II).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the economic consequences of immediate delivery compared with expectant monitoring in women with preterm non-severe hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial (HYPITAT-II). SETTING: Obstetric departments of seven academic hospitals and 44 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands. POPULATION: Women diagnosed with non-severe hypertensive disorders of pregnancy between 340/7 and 370/7  weeks of gestation, randomly allocated to either immediate delivery or expectant monitoring. METHODS: A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a healthcare perspective until final maternal and neonatal discharge. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Health outcomes were expressed as the prevalence of respiratory distress syndrome, defined as the need for supplemental oxygen for >24 hours combined with radiographic findings typical for respiratory distress syndrome. Costs were estimated from a healthcare perspective until maternal and neonatal discharge. RESULTS: The average costs of immediate delivery (n = 352) were €10 245 versus €9563 for expectant monitoring (n = 351), with an average difference of €682 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI -€618 to €2126). This 7% difference predominantly originated from the neonatal admissions, which were €5672 in the immediate delivery arm and €3929 in the expectant monitoring arm. CONCLUSION: In women with mild hypertensive disorders between 340/7 and 370/7  weeks of gestation, immediate delivery is more costly than expectant monitoring as a result of differences in neonatal admissions. These findings support expectant monitoring, as the clinical outcomes of the trial demonstrated that expectant monitoring reduced respiratory distress syndrome for a slightly increased risk of maternal complications. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Expectant management in preterm hypertensive disorders is less costly compared with immediate delivery.

Should the individual preterm birth risk be incorporated into the embryo transfer policy in in vitro fertilisation? A decision analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess by proof of principle whether the individual risk for preterm birth (PTB) should be incorporated into the embryo transfer policy in in vitro fertilisation (IVF). DESIGN AND SETTING: A theoretical decision analysis. METHODS AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A decision tree was built to compare the consequences of different chances of PTB on the outcome of single embryo transfer (SET) or double embryo transfer (DET) in patients with different prognosis of conception. Based on patient characteristics, three scenarios of prognosis of conception were considered and the consequences of SET and DET were calculated for different chances of PTB in these groups. The primary outcome was the health of the children born. Sensitivity analyses were performed for both prognosis for conception and chances of PTB. RESULTS: In women with good fertility prospects, one IVF cycle with DET increases the ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) from 29 to 39% compared with SET, whereas the chances of poor neonatal outcome in these extra pregnancies range from 1.4 to 11% per pregnancy depending on the individual PTB risk. However, for women with poor fertility prospects, DET increases the OPR from 8 to 11% with minimal additional poor neonatal outcome, ranging from 0.3 to 4.0% per pregnancy for women with a low or high PTB risk, respectively. Our findings were robust in multiple sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: In an IVF programme, the optimal embryo transfer strategy is dependent on the singleton and multiple pregnancy chances of a woman, but also on her PTB risk. In women with low PTB risk, DET increases the OPR for a small additional risk of neonatal complications. Our analysis pleads for a tailored management strategy, taking into account the personalised prognosis for (multiple) pregnancy and PTB.