Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of Mifepristone Pretreatment for the Medical Management of Nonviable Early Pregnancy: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT: Importance:Early pregnancy loss (EPL) is the most common complication of pregnancy. A multicenter randomized clinical trial compared 2 strategies for medical management and found that mifepristone pretreatment is 25% more effective than the standard of care, misoprostol alone. The cost of mifepristone may be a barrier to implementation of the regimen. Objective:To assess the cost-effectiveness of medical management of EPL with mifepristone pretreatment plus misoprostol vs misoprostol alone in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants:This preplanned. prospective economic evaluation was performed concurrently with a randomized clinical trial in 3 US sites from May 1, 2014, through April 30, 2017. Participants included 300 women with anembryonic gestation or embryonic or fetal demise. Cost-effectiveness was computed from the health care sector and societal perspectives, with a 30-day time horizon. Data were analyzed from July 1, 2018, to July 3, 2019. Interventions:Mifepristone pretreatment plus misoprostol administration vs misoprostol alone. Main Outcomes and Measures:Costs in 2018 US dollars, effectiveness in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and treatment efficacy. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of mifepristone and misoprostol vs misoprostol alone were calculated, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were generated. Results:Among the 300 women included in the randomized clinical trial (mean [SD] age, 30.4 [6.2] years), mean costs were similar for groups receiving mifepristone pretreatment and misoprostol alone from the health care sector perspective ($696.75 [95% CI, $591.88-$801.62] vs $690.88 [95% CI, $562.38-$819.38]; P?=?.94) and the societal perspective ($3846.30 [95% CI, $2783.01-$4909.58] vs $4845.62 [95% CI, $3186.84-$6504.41]; P?=?.32). The mifepristone pretreatment group had higher QALYs (0.0820 [95% CI, 0.0815-0.0825] vs 0.0806 [95% CI, 0.0800-0.0812]; P?=?.001) and a higher completion rate after first treatment (83.8% vs 67.1%; P?

SUBMITTER: Nagendra D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7439768 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of Mifepristone Pretreatment for the Medical Management of Nonviable Early Pregnancy: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Nagendra Divyah D Koelper Nathanael N Loza-Avalos Sandra E SE Sonalkar Sarita S Chen Melissa M Atrio Jessica J Schreiber Courtney A CA Harvie Heidi S HS

JAMA network open 20200302 3

<h4>Importance</h4>Early pregnancy loss (EPL) is the most common complication of pregnancy. A multicenter randomized clinical trial compared 2 strategies for medical management and found that mifepristone pretreatment is 25% more effective than the standard of care, misoprostol alone. The cost of mifepristone may be a barrier to implementation of the regimen.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the cost-effectiveness of medical management of EPL with mifepristone pretreatment plus misoprostol vs misopros ...[more]

PMID: 32215633

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMedical management of early pregnancy loss is an alternative to uterine aspiration, but standard medical treatment with misoprostol commonly results in treatment failure. We compared the efficacy and safety of pretreatment with mifepristone followed by treatment with misoprostol with the efficacy and safety of misoprostol use alone for the management of early pregnancy loss.MethodsWe randomly assigned 300 women who had an anembryonic gestation or in whom embryonic or fetal death was confirmed to receive pretreatment with 200 mg of mifepristone, administered orally, followed by 800 μg of misoprostol, administered vaginally (mifepristone-pretreatment group), or 800 μg of misoprostol alone, administered vaginally (misoprostol-alone group). Participants returned 1 to 4 days after misoprostol use for evaluation, including ultrasound examination, by an investigator who was unaware of the treatment-group assignments. Women in whom the gestational sac was not expelled were offered expectant management, a second dose of misoprostol, or uterine aspiration. We followed all participants for 30 days after randomization. Our primary outcome was gestational sac expulsion with one dose of misoprostol by the first follow-up visit and no additional intervention within 30 days after treatment.ResultsComplete expulsion after one dose of misoprostol occurred in 124 of 148 women (83.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 76.8 to 89.3) in the mifepristone-pretreatment group and in 100 of 149 women (67.1%; 95% CI, 59.0 to 74.6) in the misoprostol-alone group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.43). Uterine aspiration was performed less frequently in the mifepristone-pretreatment group than in the misoprostol-alone group (8.8% vs. 23.5%; relative risk, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.68). Bleeding that resulted in blood transfusion occurred in 2.0% of the women in the mifepristone-pretreatment group and in 0.7% of the women in the misoprostol-alone group (P=0.31); pelvic infection was diagnosed in 1.3% of the women in each group.ConclusionsPretreatment with mifepristone followed by treatment with misoprostol resulted in a higher likelihood of successful management of first-trimester pregnancy loss than treatment with misoprostol alone. (Funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; PreFaiR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02012491 .).

Project description:BackgroundEarly pregnancy loss, also referred to as miscarriage, is common, affecting approximately 1 million people in the United States annually. Early pregnancy loss can be treated with expectant management, medications, or surgical procedures-strategies that differ in patient experience, effectiveness, and cost. One of the medications used for early pregnancy loss treatment, mifepristone, is uniquely regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness from the healthcare sector perspective of medical management of early pregnancy loss, using the standard of care medication regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol, with that of office uterine aspiration.Study designWe developed a decision analytical model to compare the cost-effectiveness of early pregnancy loss treatment with medical management with that of office uterine aspiration. Data on medical management came from the Pregnancy Failure Regimens randomized clinical trial, and data on uterine aspiration came from the published literature. The analysis was from the healthcare sector perspective with a 30-day time horizon. Costs were in 2018 US dollars. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjust life-years gained and the rate of complete gestational sac expulsion with no additional interventions. Our primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjust life-year gained. Sensitivity analysis was performed to identify the key uncertainties.ResultsMean per-person costs were higher for uterine aspiration than for medical management ($828 [95% confidence interval, $789-$868] vs $661 [95% confidence interval, $556-$766]; P=.004). Uterine aspiration more frequently led to complete gestational sac expulsion than medical management (97.3% vs 83.8%; P=.0001); however, estimated quality-adjust life-years were higher for medical management than for uterine aspiration (0.082 [95% confidence interval, 0.8148-0.08248] vs 0.079 [95% confidence interval, 0.0789-0.0791]; P<.0001). Medical management dominated uterine aspiration, with lower costs and higher confidence interval. The probability that medical management is cost-effective relative to uterine aspiration is 97.5% for all willingness-to-pay values of ≥$5600/quality-adjust life-year. Sensitivity analysis did not identify any thresholds that would substantially change outcomes.ConclusionAlthough office-based uterine aspiration more often results in treatment completion without further intervention, medical management with mifepristone pretreatment costs less and yields similar quality-adjust life-years, making it an attractive alternative. Our findings provided evidence that increasing access to mifepristone and eliminating unnecessary restrictions will improve early pregnancy care.

Project description:IntroductionMedical treatment is a less invasive alternative to surgical management of missed miscarriage. Studies have shown that pretreatment with mifepristone can increase the complete abortion rate in management of first-trimester missed miscarriage compared with misoprostol alone. Two studies have also shown that pretreatment with letrozole could increase the efficacy compared with misoprostol alone. So far, there is no trial comparing letrozole and mifepristone pretreatment for missed miscarriage. We designed this randomised controlled trial to test the hypothesis that for first-trimester missed miscarriage, letrozole pretreatment is non-inferior to mifepristone pretreatment followed by misoprostol in terms of complete abortion rate.Methods and analysisThis is a prospective open-label non-inferiority randomised controlled trial conducted in a single centre. In total, 294 women diagnosed with first-trimester missed miscarriage opting for medical treatment is recruited with informed consent. They are randomly assigned to receive mifepristone or letrozole pretreatment. In the mifepristone group, each woman takes 200 mg mifepristone orally followed 24-48 hours later by 800 µg misoprostol vaginally. In the letrozole group, each woman takes 10 mg letrozole orally per day for 3 days, followed by 800 µg misoprostol vaginally on the third day of letrozole administration. Follow-up is conducted on days 15 and 42 after misoprostol administration. The primary outcome is the overall complete abortion rate. Secondary outcomes include side effects and complications during the study period. Data will be analysed with both intention-to-treat and per protocol approaches. A p<0.05 will be considered as indicating statistical significance.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital with approval number: (2020)166. Findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and in national and/or international meetings to guide future practice.Trial registration numberChiCTR2000041480.

Project description:The cost-effectiveness of surgical versus conservative medical management of vertebral compression fractures in the US was analyzed in the context of inpatient versus outpatient treatment. Surgical intervention (balloon kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty) was found to be cost-effective relative to conservative medical management at a US willingness-to-pay threshold.IntroductionTo date, only one published study has evaluated the cost-effectiveness (C/E) of balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) or vertebroplasty (VP) in US Medicare patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. This study further evaluates the C/E of surgical treatment vs. conservative medical management (CMM), expanding on prior modeling by accounting for quality-adjusted life-years gained.MethodsA Markov microsimulation model of 1000 patients was constructed. Cost data were based on an analysis of Medicare claims payments, with propensity-score matching performed for BKP and VP vs. controls (CMM). Mortality inputs were based on US life tables, modified to account for age at initial fracture, presence of subsequent fracture(s), and relative risk of mortality by treatment. Separate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for BKP and VP in inpatient and outpatient surgical treatment locations to account for individual clinical profiles presenting to each.ResultsThe discounted ICER for inpatient BKP vs. CMM was $43,455 per QALY gained; for outpatient BKP vs. CMM, $10,922; for inpatient VP vs. CMM, $39,774; and for outpatient VP vs. CMM, $12,293. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed that both BKP and VP would be considered C/E vs. CMM at a US willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY in 80% and 100% of 500 model simulations, respectively. The most sensitive parameters included quality of life estimates and hazard ratios for mortality.ConclusionWhile VP and BKP are more expensive treatment options than CMM in the short term, model results suggest interventional treatment is cost-effective, among patients eligible for surgery, at a US WTP threshold. This conclusion supports those from economic analyses conducted in EU-member countries.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of Mifepristone Pretreatment for the Medical Management of Nonviable Early Pregnancy: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of Mifepristone Pretreatment for the Medical Management of Nonviable Early Pregnancy: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets