Clinical value and cost analysis of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in addition to the spot urine protein/creatinine ratio in women with suspected pre-eclampsia: PREPARE cohort study.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the clinical value of adding the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio to the spot urine protein/creatinine ratio (PCr) in women with suspected pre-eclampsia. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study performed in a tertiary referral centre. Based on the combination of PCr (< 30) and sFlt-1/PlGF (≤38) results, four groups were described: a double negative result, group A-/-; a negative PCr and positive sFlt-1/PlGF, group B-/+; a positive PCr and negative sFlt-1/PlGF, group C+/-; and a double positive result, group D+/+. The primary outcome was the proportion of false negatives of the combined tests in comparison with PCr alone in the first week after baseline. Secondary, a cost analysis comparing the costs and savings of adding the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was performed for different follow-up scenarios. RESULTS: A total of 199 women were included. Pre-eclampsia in the first week was observed in 2 women (2%) in group A-/-, 12 (26%) in group B-/+, 4 (27%) in group C+/-, and 12 (92%) in group D+/+. The proportion of false negatives of 8.2% [95% CI 4.9-13.3] with the PCr alone was significantly reduced to 1.6% [0.4-5.7] by adding a negative sFlt-1/PlGF ratio. Furthermore, the addition of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio to the spot urine PCr, with telemonitoring of women at risk, could result in a reduction of 41% admissions and 36% outpatient visits, leading to a cost reduction of €46,- per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in addition to the spot urine PCr, may lead to improved selection of women at low risk and a reduction of hospital care for women with suspected pre-eclampsia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register (NL8308).

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.