Misoprostol Vaginal Insert in Labor Induction: A Cost-Consequences Model for 5 European Countries-An Economic Evaluation Supported with Literature Review and Retrospective Data Collection
- PMID: 27549327
- PMCID: PMC5055557
- DOI: 10.1007/s12325-016-0397-3
Misoprostol Vaginal Insert in Labor Induction: A Cost-Consequences Model for 5 European Countries-An Economic Evaluation Supported with Literature Review and Retrospective Data Collection
Abstract
Introduction: The present study aimed to assess the costs and consequences of using an innovative medical technology, misoprostol vaginal insert (MVI), for the induction of labor (IOL), in place of alternative technologies used as a standard of care.
Methods: This was a retrospective study on cost and resource utilization connected with economic model development. Target population were women with an unfavorable cervix, from 36 weeks of gestation, for whom IOL is clinically indicated. Data on costs and resources was gathered via a dedicated questionnaire, delivered to clinical experts in five EU countries. The five countries participating in the project and providing completed questionnaires were Austria, Poland, Romania, Russia and Slovakia. A targeted literature review in Medline and Cochrane was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials meeting inclusion criteria and to obtain relative effectiveness data on MVI and the alternative technologies. A hospital perspective was considered as most relevant for the study. The economic model was developed to connect data on clinical effectiveness and safety from randomized clinical trials with real life data from local clinical practice.
Results: The use of MVI in most scenarios was related to a reduced consumption of hospital staff time and reduced length of patients' stay in hospital wards, leading to lower total costs with MVI when compared to local comparators.
Conclusions: IOL with the use of MVI generated savings from a hospital perspective in most countries and scenarios, in comparison to alternative technologies.
Funding: Sponsorship, article processing charges, and the open access charge for this study were funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals Poland.
Keywords: Cost consequences analysis; Labor induction; MVI; Misoprostol vaginal insert; Reproduction.
Figures
Similar articles
-
A comparison of obstetrical outcomes and costs between misoprostol and dinoprostone for induction of labor.J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016 Nov;29(22):3732-6. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2016.1142965. Epub 2016 Feb 26. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016. PMID: 26782646
-
A comparison of misoprostol vaginal insert and misoprostol vaginal tablets for induction of labor in nulliparous women: a retrospective cohort study.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018 Jan 5;18(1):11. doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1647-3. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018. PMID: 29304769 Free PMC article.
-
Reduction in resource use with the misoprostol vaginal insert vs the dinoprostone vaginal insert for labour induction: a model-based analysis from a United Kingdom healthcare perspective.BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Feb 10;16:49. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1278-9. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016. PMID: 26864022 Free PMC article.
-
Vaginal misoprostol for term labor induction.Ann Pharmacother. 1997 Nov;31(11):1391-3. Ann Pharmacother. 1997. PMID: 9391696 Review.
-
Misoprostol vaginal insert for induction of labor: a delivery system with accurate dosing and rapid discontinuation.Womens Health (Lond). 2014 Jan;10(1):29-36. doi: 10.2217/whe.13.49. Womens Health (Lond). 2014. PMID: 24328596 Review.
Cited by
-
Induction of Labor: A Narrative Review on Cost Efficiency in Maternity Care.Cureus. 2024 Oct 12;16(10):e71302. doi: 10.7759/cureus.71302. eCollection 2024 Oct. Cureus. 2024. PMID: 39529780 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Abdominal complex muscle in women with stress urinary incontinence - prospective case-control study.Arch Med Sci. 2021 Apr 17;19(4):1016-1021. doi: 10.5114/aoms/135708. eCollection 2023. Arch Med Sci. 2021. PMID: 37560716 Free PMC article.
-
Challenges and Limitations of Clinical Trials on Labor Induction: A Review of the Literature.AJP Rep. 2018 Oct;8(4):e365-e378. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1676577. Epub 2018 Dec 26. AJP Rep. 2018. PMID: 30591843 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- NICE Induction of labour. Clinical Guideline July 2008. https://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/cg70. Accessed Feb 2014.
-
- Misodel Summary of Product Characteristic. http://pub.rejestrymedyczne.csioz.gov.pl/ProduktSzczegoly.aspx?id=30708. Accessed 21 Mar 2014.
-
- Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from http://www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources