Comparing induction of labour with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter at term: cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled multi-centre non-inferiority trial

Abstract

Objective: To assess the costs of labour induction with oral misoprostol versus Foley catheter.

Design: Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

Setting: Obstetric departments of six tertiary and 23 secondary care hospitals in the Netherlands.

Population: Women with a viable term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, intact membranes, an unfavourable cervix (Bishop score <6) without a previous caesarean section, were randomised for labour induction with oral misoprostol (n = 924) or Foley catheter (n = 921).

Methods: We performed economic analysis from a hospital perspective. We estimated direct medical costs associated with healthcare utilisation from randomisation until discharge. The robustness of our findings was evaluated in sensitivity analyses.

Main outcome measures: Mean costs and differences were calculated per women induced with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter.

Results: Mean costs per woman in the oral misoprostol group and Foley catheter group were €4470 versus €4158, respectively [mean difference €312, 95% confidence interval (CI) -€508 to €1063]. Multiple sensitivity analyses did not change these conclusions. However, if cervical ripening for low-risk pregnancies in the Foley catheter group was carried out in an outpatient setting, with admittance to labour ward only at start of active labour, the difference would be €4470 versus €3489, respectively (mean difference €981, 95% CI €225-1817).

Conclusions: Oral misoprostol and Foley catheter generate comparable costs. Cervical ripening outside labour ward with a Foley catheter could potentially save almost €1000 per woman.

Tweetable abstract: Oral misoprostol or Foley catheter for induction of labour generates comparable costs.

Keywords: Cost-effectiveness; Foley catheter; induction of labour; oral misoprostol.