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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 Efficacy and safety data were based on published and unpublished results from a phase III, double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.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 |