Cost-effectiveness analysis of expectant vs active management for treatment of persistent pregnancies of unknown location.

BACKGROUND: Persistent pregnancies of unknown location are defined by abnormally trending serum human chorionic gonadotropin with nondiagnostic ultrasound. There is no consensus on optimal management. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of 3 primary management strategies for persistent pregnancies of unknown location: (1) expectant management, (2) empirical 2-dose methotrexate, and (3) uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate, if indicated. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective economic evaluation performed concurrently with the Expectant versus Active Management for Treatment of Persistent Pregnancies of Unknown Location multicenter randomized trial that was conducted from July 2014 to June 2019. Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to expectant management, 2-dose methotrexate, or uterine evacuation. The analysis was from the healthcare sector perspective with a 6-week time horizon after randomization. Costs were expressed in 2018 US dollars. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years and the rate of salpingectomy. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were generated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the analysis. RESULTS: Methotrexate had the lowest mean cost ($875), followed by expectant management ($1085) and uterine evacuation ($1902) (P=.001). Expectant management had the highest mean quality-adjusted life years (0.1043), followed by methotrexate (0.1031) and uterine evacuation (0.0992) (P=.0001). The salpingectomy rate was higher for expectant management than for methotrexate (9.4% vs 1.2%, respectively; P=.02) and for expectant management than for uterine evacuation (9.4% vs 8.1%, respectively; P=.04). Uterine evacuation, with the highest costs and the lowest quality-adjusted life years, was dominated by both expectant management and methotrexate. In the base case analysis, expectant management was not cost-effective compared with methotrexate at a willingness to pay of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year given an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $175,083 per quality-adjusted life year gained (95% confidence interval, -$1,666,825 to $2,676,375). Threshold analysis demonstrated that methotrexate administration would have to cost $214 (an increase of $16 or 8%) to favor expectant management. Moreover, expectant management would be favorable in lower-risk patient populations with rates of laparoscopic surgical management for ectopic pregnancy not exceeding 4% of pregnancies of unknown location. Based on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, the probability of expectant management being cost-effective compared with methotrexate at a willingness to pay of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained was 50%. The results were dependent on the cost of surgical intervention and the expected rate of methotrexate failure. CONCLUSION: The management of pregnancies of unknown location with a 2-dose methotrexate protocol may be cost-effective compared with expectant management and uterine evacuation. Although uterine evacuation was dominated, expectant management vs methotrexate results were sensitive to modest changes in treatment costs of both methotrexate and surgical management.

How to minimize the dropout and crossover in an infertility trial?

Randomized controlled trials and intent-to-treat analyses are important for infertility clinical studies. Dropouts or crossovers during the study process will disrupt the randomization design and affect the intent-to-treat analysis. In this review, we have briefly introduced the occurrence of dropout and crossover from our previous Reproductive Medicine Network and other related studies and provided some experience obtained from these studies on how to minimize and reduce the occurrence of dropout and crossover for infertility randomized clinical studies.

The efficiency of single institutional review board review in National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network-initiated clinical trials.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Timely review of research protocols by institutional review boards leads to more rapid initiation of clinical trials, which is critical to expeditious translation from bench to bedside. This observational study examined the impact of a single institutional review board on time and efforts required to initiate clinical trials by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network. METHODS: Collection of data from the same six main clinical sites for three current clinical trials and two past clinical trials, including time from institutional review board submission to approval, pages submitted, consent form length, number of required attachments, other regulatory requirements, order of review at central or local sites, and language in documents at individual participating sites. Results from two past clinical trials were also included. RESULTS: While time required for actual institutional review board submission's review and initial approval was reduced with use of a single institutional review board for multicenter trials (from a mean of 66.7-24.0 days), total time was increased (to a mean of 111.2 or 123.3 days). In addition to single institutional review board approval, all institutions required local approval of some components (commonly consent language and use of local language), which varied considerably. The single institutional review board relied on local institutions for adding or removing personnel, conflict of interest review, and auditing of activities. CONCLUSION: A single institutional review board reduced time for initial review and approval of protocols and informed consents, although time for the entire process was increased, as individual institutions retained oversight of components of required regulatory review. In order to best achieve the National Institute of Health's goals for improved efficiency in initiation and conduct of multisite clinical research, greater coordination with local institutional review boards is key to streamlining and accelerating initiation of multisite clinical research.