Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: In view of the increasing pressure on the UK’s maternity units, new methods of labour induction are required to alleviate the burden on the National Health Service, while maintaining the quality of care for women during delivery. A model was developed to evaluate the resource use associa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Draycott, T., van der Nelson, H., Montouchet, C., Ruff, L., Andersson, F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4750172/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26864022
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1278-9
_version_ 1782415389746003968
author Draycott, T.
van der Nelson, H.
Montouchet, C.
Ruff, L.
Andersson, F.
author_facet Draycott, T.
van der Nelson, H.
Montouchet, C.
Ruff, L.
Andersson, F.
author_sort Draycott, T.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In view of the increasing pressure on the UK’s maternity units, new methods of labour induction are required to alleviate the burden on the National Health Service, while maintaining the quality of care for women during delivery. A model was developed to evaluate the resource use associated with misoprostol vaginal inserts (MVIs) and dinoprostone vaginal inserts (DVIs) for the induction of labour at term. METHODS: The one-year Markov model estimated clinical outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of 1397 pregnant women (parous and nulliparous) induced with either MVI or DVI at Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK. Efficacy and safety data were based on published and unpublished results from a phase III, double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Resource use was modelled using data from labour induction during antenatal admission to patient discharge from Southmead Hospital. The model’s sensitivity to key parameters was explored in deterministic multi-way and scenario-based analyses. RESULTS: Over one year, the model results indicated MVI use could lead to a reduction of 10,201 h (28.9 %) in the time to vaginal delivery, and an increase of 121 % and 52 % in the proportion of women achieving vaginal delivery at 12 and 24 h, respectively, compared with DVI use. Inducing women with the MVI could lead to a 25.2 % reduction in the number of midwife shifts spent managing labour induction and 451 fewer hospital bed days. These resource utilisation reductions may equate to a potential 27.4 % increase in birthing capacity at Southmead Hospital, when using the MVI instead of the DVI. CONCLUSIONS: Resource use, in addition to clinical considerations, should be considered when making decisions about labour induction methods. Our model analysis suggests the MVI is an effective method for labour induction, and could lead to a considerable reduction in resource use compared with the DVI, thereby alleviating the increasing burden of labour induction in UK hospitals.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4750172
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47501722016-02-12 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 Draycott, T. van der Nelson, H. Montouchet, C. Ruff, L. Andersson, F. BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: In view of the increasing pressure on the UK’s maternity units, new methods of labour induction are required to alleviate the burden on the National Health Service, while maintaining the quality of care for women during delivery. A model was developed to evaluate the resource use associated with misoprostol vaginal inserts (MVIs) and dinoprostone vaginal inserts (DVIs) for the induction of labour at term. METHODS: The one-year Markov model estimated clinical outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of 1397 pregnant women (parous and nulliparous) induced with either MVI or DVI at Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK. Efficacy and safety data were based on published and unpublished results from a phase III, double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Resource use was modelled using data from labour induction during antenatal admission to patient discharge from Southmead Hospital. The model’s sensitivity to key parameters was explored in deterministic multi-way and scenario-based analyses. RESULTS: Over one year, the model results indicated MVI use could lead to a reduction of 10,201 h (28.9 %) in the time to vaginal delivery, and an increase of 121 % and 52 % in the proportion of women achieving vaginal delivery at 12 and 24 h, respectively, compared with DVI use. Inducing women with the MVI could lead to a 25.2 % reduction in the number of midwife shifts spent managing labour induction and 451 fewer hospital bed days. These resource utilisation reductions may equate to a potential 27.4 % increase in birthing capacity at Southmead Hospital, when using the MVI instead of the DVI. CONCLUSIONS: Resource use, in addition to clinical considerations, should be considered when making decisions about labour induction methods. Our model analysis suggests the MVI is an effective method for labour induction, and could lead to a considerable reduction in resource use compared with the DVI, thereby alleviating the increasing burden of labour induction in UK hospitals. BioMed Central 2016-02-10 /pmc/articles/PMC4750172/ /pubmed/26864022 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1278-9 Text en © Draycott et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Draycott, T.
van der Nelson, H.
Montouchet, C.
Ruff, L.
Andersson, F.
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
title 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_short 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
title_sort 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
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4750172/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26864022
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1278-9
work_keys_str_mv AT draycottt reductioninresourceusewiththemisoprostolvaginalinsertvsthedinoprostonevaginalinsertforlabourinductionamodelbasedanalysisfromaunitedkingdomhealthcareperspective
AT vandernelsonh reductioninresourceusewiththemisoprostolvaginalinsertvsthedinoprostonevaginalinsertforlabourinductionamodelbasedanalysisfromaunitedkingdomhealthcareperspective
AT montouchetc reductioninresourceusewiththemisoprostolvaginalinsertvsthedinoprostonevaginalinsertforlabourinductionamodelbasedanalysisfromaunitedkingdomhealthcareperspective
AT ruffl reductioninresourceusewiththemisoprostolvaginalinsertvsthedinoprostonevaginalinsertforlabourinductionamodelbasedanalysisfromaunitedkingdomhealthcareperspective
AT anderssonf reductioninresourceusewiththemisoprostolvaginalinsertvsthedinoprostonevaginalinsertforlabourinductionamodelbasedanalysisfromaunitedkingdomhealthcareperspective