Cargando…

A Retrospective Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Mifepristone–Misoprostol Medical Abortions in the First Year at the Regina General Hospital

OBJECTIVE: In July 2017, mifepristone–misoprostol (mife/miso) became available for medical abortion at the Regina General Hospital's Women's Health Centre (RGH WHC). We investigated whether the proportion of abortions performed medically changed as a result of the introduction of mife/miso...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hunter, Caitlin, Jensen, Joshua, Imeah, Biaka, McCarron, Michelle, Clark, Megan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada/La Société des obstétriciens et gynécologues du Canada. Published by Elsevier Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7445185/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33153943
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2020.08.008
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: In July 2017, mifepristone–misoprostol (mife/miso) became available for medical abortion at the Regina General Hospital's Women's Health Centre (RGH WHC). We investigated whether the proportion of abortions performed medically changed as a result of the introduction of mife/miso, whether using mife/miso instead of the surgical alternative would result in cost savings to the health care system, and whether abortion type differed between patients residing in and outside of Regina. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all 306 medical abortions from the RGH WHC between July 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018. We obtained medical and surgical abortion information from that year and the preceding one from an administrative database. Statistical methods were used to calculate the costs of mife/miso, methotrexate-misoprostol (MTX/miso) and surgical abortion, as well as cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: The proportion of medical abortions increased from 15.4% in 2016/2017 to 28.7% in 2017/2018 (χ(2)(1) = 54.629; P < 0.001). Calculated costs for mife/miso, with and without complications were CAD $1173.70 and CAD $1708.90, respectively, versus CAD $871.10 and CAD $1204.10, respectively, for MTX/miso, and CAD $1445.95 and CAD $2261.95, respectively, for hospital-based vacuum aspiration. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAD $318 (the cost of mife/miso), statistical modelling showed a 61.3% chance that mife/miso was more cost-effective than surgical abortion and a 90.8% chance that it was more cost-effective than MTX/miso. Patients from Regina were significantly more likely (χ(2)(1) = 29.406; P < 0.001) to receive a medical abortion (34.9% of abortions) than those living outside of Regina (19.6% of abortions). CONCLUSION: The proportion of abortions completed medically increased significantly over the period studied. Patients from Regina were more likely to receive medical abortion during both time periods. Mife/miso had a >50% probability of cost-effectiveness over both surgical and MTX/miso options.