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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alfirevic, Z, Keeney, E, Dowswell, T, Welton, NJ, Medley, N, Dias, S, Jones, LV, Caldwell, DM
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