Cargando…
Methods to induce labour: a systematic review, network meta‐analysis and cost‐effectiveness analysis
OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of labour induction methods. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomised trials comparing interventions for third‐trimester labour induction (search date: March 2014). Network meta‐analysis was possible for six of n...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5021158/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27001034 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13981 |
_version_ | 1782453310616240128 |
---|---|
author | Alfirevic, Z Keeney, E Dowswell, T Welton, NJ Medley, N Dias, S Jones, LV Caldwell, DM |
author_facet | Alfirevic, Z Keeney, E Dowswell, T Welton, NJ Medley, N Dias, S Jones, LV Caldwell, DM |
author_sort | Alfirevic, Z |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of labour induction methods. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomised trials comparing interventions for third‐trimester labour induction (search date: March 2014). Network meta‐analysis was possible for six of nine prespecified key outcomes: vaginal delivery within 24 hours (VD24), caesarean section, uterine hyperstimulation, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions, instrumental delivery and infant Apgar scores. We developed a decision‐tree model from a UK NHS perspective and calculated incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios, expected costs, utilities and net benefit, and cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves. MAIN RESULTS: In all, 611 studies comparing 31 active interventions were included. Intravenous oxytocin with amniotomy and vaginal misoprostol (≥50 μg) were most likely to achieve VD24. Titrated low‐dose oral misoprostol achieved the lowest odds of caesarean section, but there was considerable uncertainty in ranking estimates. Vaginal (≥50 μg) and buccal/sublingual misoprostol were most likely to increase uterine hyperstimulation with high uncertainty in ranking estimates. Compared with placebo, extra‐amniotic prostaglandin E(2) reduced NICU admissions. There were insufficient data to conduct analyses for maternal and neonatal mortality and serious morbidity or maternal satisfaction. Conclusions were robust after exclusion of studies at high risk of bias. Due to poor reporting of VD24, the cost‐effectiveness analysis compared a subset of 20 interventions. There was considerable uncertainty in estimates, but buccal/sublingual and titrated (low‐dose) misoprostol showed the highest probability of being most cost‐effective. CONCLUSIONS: Future trials should be designed and powered to detect a method that is more cost‐effective than low‐dose titrated oral misoprostol. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: New study ranks methods to induce labour in pregnant women on effectiveness and cost. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5021158 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-50211582016-09-23 Methods to induce labour: a systematic review, network meta‐analysis and cost‐effectiveness analysis Alfirevic, Z Keeney, E Dowswell, T Welton, NJ Medley, N Dias, S Jones, LV Caldwell, DM BJOG Systematic Reviews OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of labour induction methods. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomised trials comparing interventions for third‐trimester labour induction (search date: March 2014). Network meta‐analysis was possible for six of nine prespecified key outcomes: vaginal delivery within 24 hours (VD24), caesarean section, uterine hyperstimulation, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions, instrumental delivery and infant Apgar scores. We developed a decision‐tree model from a UK NHS perspective and calculated incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios, expected costs, utilities and net benefit, and cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves. MAIN RESULTS: In all, 611 studies comparing 31 active interventions were included. Intravenous oxytocin with amniotomy and vaginal misoprostol (≥50 μg) were most likely to achieve VD24. Titrated low‐dose oral misoprostol achieved the lowest odds of caesarean section, but there was considerable uncertainty in ranking estimates. Vaginal (≥50 μg) and buccal/sublingual misoprostol were most likely to increase uterine hyperstimulation with high uncertainty in ranking estimates. Compared with placebo, extra‐amniotic prostaglandin E(2) reduced NICU admissions. There were insufficient data to conduct analyses for maternal and neonatal mortality and serious morbidity or maternal satisfaction. Conclusions were robust after exclusion of studies at high risk of bias. Due to poor reporting of VD24, the cost‐effectiveness analysis compared a subset of 20 interventions. There was considerable uncertainty in estimates, but buccal/sublingual and titrated (low‐dose) misoprostol showed the highest probability of being most cost‐effective. CONCLUSIONS: Future trials should be designed and powered to detect a method that is more cost‐effective than low‐dose titrated oral misoprostol. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: New study ranks methods to induce labour in pregnant women on effectiveness and cost. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-03-22 2016-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5021158/ /pubmed/27001034 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13981 Text en © 2016 The Authors. BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Systematic Reviews Alfirevic, Z Keeney, E Dowswell, T Welton, NJ Medley, N Dias, S Jones, LV Caldwell, DM Methods to induce labour: a systematic review, network meta‐analysis and cost‐effectiveness analysis |
title | Methods to induce labour: a systematic review, network meta‐analysis and cost‐effectiveness analysis |
title_full | Methods to induce labour: a systematic review, network meta‐analysis and cost‐effectiveness analysis |
title_fullStr | Methods to induce labour: a systematic review, network meta‐analysis and cost‐effectiveness analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Methods to induce labour: a systematic review, network meta‐analysis and cost‐effectiveness analysis |
title_short | Methods to induce labour: a systematic review, network meta‐analysis and cost‐effectiveness analysis |
title_sort | methods to induce labour: a systematic review, network meta‐analysis and cost‐effectiveness analysis |
topic | Systematic Reviews |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5021158/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27001034 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13981 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT alfirevicz methodstoinducelabourasystematicreviewnetworkmetaanalysisandcosteffectivenessanalysis AT keeneye methodstoinducelabourasystematicreviewnetworkmetaanalysisandcosteffectivenessanalysis AT dowswellt methodstoinducelabourasystematicreviewnetworkmetaanalysisandcosteffectivenessanalysis AT weltonnj methodstoinducelabourasystematicreviewnetworkmetaanalysisandcosteffectivenessanalysis AT medleyn methodstoinducelabourasystematicreviewnetworkmetaanalysisandcosteffectivenessanalysis AT diass methodstoinducelabourasystematicreviewnetworkmetaanalysisandcosteffectivenessanalysis AT joneslv methodstoinducelabourasystematicreviewnetworkmetaanalysisandcosteffectivenessanalysis AT caldwelldm methodstoinducelabourasystematicreviewnetworkmetaanalysisandcosteffectivenessanalysis |