Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]