Cervical pessary vs vaginal progesterone for prevention of preterm birth in women with twin pregnancy and short cervix: economic analysis following randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of cervical pessary vs vaginal progesterone to prevent preterm birth and neonatal morbidity in women with twin pregnancy and a short cervix. METHODS: Between 4 March 2016 and 3 June 2017, we performed this economic analysis following a randomized controlled trial (RCT), performed at My Duc Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, that compared cervical pessary to vaginal progesterone in women with twin pregnancy and cervical length < 38 mm between 16 and 22 weeks of gestation. We used morbidity-free neonatal survival as a measure of effectiveness. Data on pregnancy outcome, maternal morbidity and neonatal complications were collected prospectively from medical files; additional information was obtained via telephone interviews with the patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the incremental cost required to achieve one extra surviving morbidity-free neonate in the pessary group compared with in the progesterone group. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: During the study period, we screened 1113 women with twin pregnancy, of whom 300 fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the RCT and gave informed consent to participate. These women were assigned randomly to receive cervical pessary (n = 150) or vaginal progesterone (n = 150), with two women and one woman, respectively, being lost to follow-up. The rate of morbidity-free neonatal survival was significantly higher in the pessary group compared with the progesterone group (n = 241/296 (81.4%) vs 219/298 (73.5%); relative risk, 1.11 (95% CI, 1.02-1.21), P = 0.02). The mean total cost per woman was 3146 € in the pessary group vs 3570 € in the progesterone group (absolute difference, -424 € (95% CI, -842 to -3 €), P = 0.048). The cost per morbidity-free neonate was significantly lower in the pessary group compared with that in the progesterone group (2492 vs 2639 €; absolute difference, -147 € (95% CI, -284 to 10 €), P = 0.035). CONCLUSION: In women with twin pregnancy and a short cervix, cervical pessary improves significantly the rate of morbidity-free neonatal survival while reducing costs, as compared with vaginal progesterone. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Is routine transvaginal cervical length measurement cost-effective in a population where the risk of spontaneous preterm birth is low?

INTRODUCTION: A recent meta-analysis has suggested that routine measurement of the cervical length should be performed in conjunction with the anomaly scan to identify a group of women at increased risk of preterm delivery. We decided to investigate whether this recommendation is justifiable in a population where the risk of preterm birth is low. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed 12 years of obstetric data from the Coombe Women and Infants University Hospital. Relative risks of adverse outcomes from the randomized controlled trial were applied and we extrapolated the possible numbers of women requiring intervention. We then used published neonatal data to estimate the cost of neonatal care and estimated the costs of providing the service. RESULTS: Over 12 years from 2000 until 2011, there were 94 646 singleton deliveries, 1776 happening before 34 weeks. Spontaneous onset occurred in 882 (49.7%) of this group. These 882 births were studied. If we apply the figures from a randomized controlled trial, 1609 women (1.7% from our total population) would be expected to have a cervical length 15 mm. If we gave vaginal progesterone to all women with a sonographically short cervix, we would reduce the delivery rate before 34 weeks by 27.7%. The annual costs of providing the service were estimated to be €109 249 and the cost of immediate neonatal care was estimated to be €380 514. CONCLUSION: Given the implications associated with preterm delivery, routine measurement of cervical length at the time of the anomaly scan may be justifiable from a cost point of view in a population where the risk of preterm birth is low.