Search

Background: Pre-eclampsia is a pregnancy complication affecting both mother and fetus. Although there is no proven effective method to prevent pre-eclampsia, early identification of women at risk of pre-eclampsia could enhance appropriate application of antenatal care, management and treatment. Very little is known about the cost effectiveness of these and other tests for pre-eclampsia, mainly because there is no clear treatment path. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing evidence on the health economics of screening, diagnosis and treatment options in pre-eclampsia., Methods: We searched three electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) for studies on screening, diagnosis, treatment or prevention of pre-eclampsia, published between 1994 and 2014. Only full papers written in English containing complete economic assessments in pre-eclampsia were included., Results: From an initial total of 138 references, six papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Three studies were on the cost effectiveness of treatment of pre-eclampsia, two of which evaluated magnesium sulphate for prevention of seizures and the third evaluated the cost effectiveness of induction of labour versus expectant monitoring. The other three studies were aimed at screening and diagnosis, in combination with subsequent preventive measures. The two studies on magnesium sulphate were equivocal on the cost effectiveness in non-severe cases, and the other study suggested that induction of labour in term pre-eclampsia was more cost effective than expectant monitoring. The screening studies were quite diverse in their objectives as well as in their conclusions. One study concluded that screening is probably not worthwhile, while two other studies stated that in certain scenarios it may be cost effective to screen all pregnant women and prophylactically treat those who are found to be at high risk of developing pre-eclampsia., Discussion: This study is the first to provide a comprehensive overview on the economic aspects of pre-eclampsia in its broadest sense, ranging from screening to treatment options. The main limitation of the present study lies in the variety of topics in combination with the limited number of papers that could be included; this restricted the comparisons that could be made. In conclusion, novel biomarkers in screening for and diagnosing pre-eclampsia show promise, but their accuracy is a major driver of cost effectiveness, as is prevalence. Universal screening for pre-eclampsia, using a biomarker, will be feasible only when accuracy is significantly increased.

Objective: To assess consumer preference for two methods of induction of labour using stated preference discrete choice modelling. The methods of induction were artificial rupture of the membranes (ARM) plus oxytocin and dinoprostone (prostaglandin E(2)) vaginal gel, followed by oxytocin if necessary., Methods: Consumer preference was measured in terms of willingness to pay for each of the attributes. These attributes were the method of administration, place of care, length of time from induction to delivery, need for epidural anaesthetic, type of delivery and cost. Levels were assigned to each of the attributes. Pregnant women attending a public hospital antenatal clinic were asked to read a description of the two methods and then to choose between them in 18 different scenarios in which the levels of the attributes were varied., Results: Women were willing to pay 11 Australian dollars for a 1% reduction in the chance of needing oxytocin as well as the gel and 55 Australian dollars for every 1 hour reduction in the length of time from induction to delivery. For a 1% reduction in the chance of needing an epidural anaesthetic or Caesarean section, women expressed a willingness to pay of 20 Australian dollars and 90 Australian dollars, respectively. All estimates were obtained in 1998 and expressed in Australian dollars (1 Australian dollar = 0.63 US dollars)., Conclusion: Women valued the less invasive method of administration of the gel and the associated greater freedom of movement during labour. However, they valued the shorter time from induction to delivery associated with ARM plus oxytocin more highly. A policy which allows women access to the gel for up to two doses would accommodate this consumer preference.

Objective: The objectives of this study were (i) to develop a conceptual framework for selecting hospitals for unit cost estimates in national and international multicentre trials and (ii) to test the impact of alternative hospital selection on the cost results., Design and Setting: Within the conceptual framework, the following considerations which can be used when selecting a sample of hospitals for unit cost estimates in multicentre trials were identified: the number of hospitals; the sampling method; and the desired level of geographical subanalysis. Results from a recently completed international multicentre trial were used to explore changes in cost results obtained by using alternative methods of selecting and stratifying hospitals for unit cost estimates., Patients and Participants: The study included 5041 women from 72 hospitals in 6 countries with prelabour rupture of the membranes at term., Interventions: The women were randomly assigned to induction of labour with intravenous oxytocin, induction of labour with prostaglandin E2 gel, or expectant management for up to 4 days with labour induced if complications developed., Main Outcome Measures and Results: Across each of the 4 management strategies of the study, the method of selecting and stratifying hospitals resulted in a 30 to 55% difference between the lowest and highest median unit cost estimates. In some cases, the relative ranking of the least to most expensive strategy varied across methods of hospital selection. The statistical comparisons across strategies found that the method used had a substantial impact on the conclusions of the economic evaluation., Conclusions: Unit cost information should be collected from as many hospitals as possible. Multivariate hospital cost studies are needed to identify important cost drivers that will assist with hospital selection in the future.

For many years the standard treatment of induction of labour has been amniotomy followed by intravenous oxytocin. More recently prostaglandin E2 (PGE2; dinoprostone), in various preparations, has been used to both ripen the cervix before amniotomy and administration of oxytocin, and to induce labour on its own. Since the acquisition cost of PGE2 is approximately 15 times that of oxytocin, it is important to justify the use of PGE2. In this paper, literature from 1970 to 1996 has been reviewed and outcomes following the use of PGE2, plus amniotomy and oxytocin if necessary, have been compared with outcomes following the use of amniotomy plus oxytocin alone. No significant differences in the mode of delivery and no serious adverse effects in mothers or babies were detected. Three economic analyses of these approaches to induction of labour have been reviewed. While under certain conditions there may be some cost savings associated with the use of PGE2, neither of the studies reviewed showed substantial, reliable cost savings. Further research is required to identify the patients who would gain most benefit from the use of PGE2.