289: Cost-effectiveness of induction of labor at term with a Foley catheter compared to prostaglandin E2 gel (based on the PROBAAT trial; registration NTR 1646)

Baaren, Gert-Jan van; Jozwiak, Marta; Rengerink, Katrien Oude; Benthem, Marjan; Dijksterhuis, Marja; Huizen, Marloes E. van; Salm, Paulien C.M. van der; Schuitemaker, Nico; Papatsonis, Dimitri; Perquin, Denise A. M.; Porath, Martina; Post, Joris A. M. van der; Rijnders, Robert; Scheepers, Hubertina C.J.; Spaanderman, Marc E. A.; Pampus, Mariëlle G. van; Leeuw, J.W. de; Mol, Ben Willem J.; Bloemenkamp, Kitty W. M.

doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2011.10.307

Cited by 3 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nine studies were multicentre studies (Edwards 2014c; Guinn 2000; Jozwiak 2012; Jozwiak 2013; Jozwiak 2014; Lokkegaard 2015; Mundle 2017; Sarreau 2016; ten Eikelder 2016), the remaining studies were single‐centre studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The included studies were conducted in the following countries: Australia (Henry 2013; Pennell 2009), Brazil (Filho 2002; Oliveira 2010, Canada (Lemyre 2006; Pineda Rivas 2016; St Onge 1995), Czech Republic (Roztocil 1998), China (Wang 2012; Wang 2014; Wu 2017; Yuen 1996), Denmark (Lokkegaard 2015; Lyndrup 1989; Lyndrup 1994), Egypt (Ahmed 2016; El Khouly 2017; Kandil 2012), Finland (Kruit 2016), France (Allouche 1993; Sarreau 2016;), India (Chavakula 2015; Dalui 2005; Deo 2012; Deshmukh 2011; Goonewardene 2014; Gunawardena 2012; Joshi 2016; Kuppulakshmi 2016; Laddad 2013; Lanka 2014; Meetei 2015; Mundle 2017; Sheikher 2009), Iran (Moini 2003; Niromanesh 2003; Roudsari 2011; Sharami 2005) Italy (Cromi 2011; Cromi 2012), Israel (Atad 1996; Barda 2018; Ophir 1992; Shechter‐Maor 2015; Salim 2011; Solt 2009), Jordan (Al‐Taani 2004; Khamaiseh 2012), the Netherlands (Jozwiak 2012; Jozwiak 2013; Jozwiak 2014; ten Eikelder 2016), Nigeria (Aduloju 2016; Garba 2016; Orhue 1995; Tabowei 2003), Norway (Haugland 2012), Pakistan (Husain 2017;…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study of Blumenthal 1990 and Sanchez‐Ramos 1992 took place between 1980 and 1989; the studies of Allouche 1993, Guinn 2000, Hemlin 1998, Hibbard 1998, Khamaiseh 2012, Lyndrup 1994, Orhue 1995, Perry 1998, Roudsari 2011, Roztocil 1998, Sciscione 1999, St Onge 1995, Sullivan 1996 and Turnquest 1997 between 1990 and 1999; the studies of Tabowei 2003, Culver 2004 and Mullin 2002 between 1998 and 2001; the studies of Al‐Taani 2004, Cromi 2011, Deshmukh 2011, Dionne 2011, Filho 2002, Joshi 2016, Jozwiak 2012, Jozwiak 2013, Krammer 1995a, Lokkegaard 2015, Matonhodze 2003, Mazhar 2003, Moini 2003, Niromanesh 2003, Oliveira 2010, Pennell 2009, Prager 2008, Roudsari 2011, Rudra 2012, Saleem 2006, Sharami 2005 and Tita 2006 between 2000 and 2009; the studies of Jozwiak 2014 and Salim 2011 between 2008 and 2011; and the studies of Aduloju 2016, Ahmed 2016, Al‐Ibraheemi 2018, Amorosa 2017, Barda 2018, Browne 2011, Carbone 2013, Chavakula 2015, Cromi 2012, Edwards 2014c, El Khouly 2017, Garba 2016, Goonewardene 2014, Haugland 2012, Henry 2013,…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…PGE2 gel : Browne 2011 (40 cc); Deo 2012 (30 cc); Deshmukh 2011 (balloon size unknown); Henry 2013 (30 cc); Jozwiak 2012 (30 cc); Orhue 1995 (30 cc); Prager 2008 (30 cc); Rouben 1993 (30 cc); Rudra 2012 (40 cc).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thirteen studies reported they received no funding (Aduloju 2016; El Khouly 2017; Garba 2016; Hoppe 2016; Husain 2017; Jozwiak 2012; Jozwiak 2013; Jozwiak 2014; Laddad 2013; Lanka 2014; Meetei 2015; Shechter‐Maor 2015; Somirathne 2017). All other studies did not provide information on received funding.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

Vaan

Eikelder

Jozwiak

et al. 2019

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Self Cite

101

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix and induce labour. During recent decades they have been substituted by pharmacological methods. Potential advantages of mechanical methods, compared with pharmacological methods may include reduction in side effects that could improve neonatal outcomes. This is an update of a review first published in 2001, last updated in 2012.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness and safety of mechanical methods for third trimester (> 24 weeks' gestation) induction of labour in comparison with prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) (vaginal and intracervical), low‐dose misoprostol (oral and vaginal), amniotomy or oxytocin.Search methodsFor this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, , the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (), and reference lists of retrieved studies (9 January 2018). We updated the search in March 2019 and added the search results to the awaiting classification section of the review.Selection criteriaClinical trials comparing mechanical methods used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with pharmacological methods.Mechanical methods include: (1) the introduction of a catheter through the cervix into the extra‐amniotic space with balloon insufflation; (2) introduction of laminaria tents, or their synthetic equivalent (Dilapan), into the cervical canal; (3) use of a catheter to inject fluid into the extra‐amniotic space (EASI).This review includes the following comparisons: (1) specific mechanical methods (balloon catheter, laminaria tents or EASI) compared with prostaglandins (different types, different routes) or with oxytocin; (2) single balloon compared to a double balloon; (3) addition of prostaglandins or oxytocin to mechanical methods compared with prostaglandins or oxytocin alone.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.Main resultsThis review update includes a total of 113 trials (22,373 women) contributing data to 21 comparisons. Risk of bias of trials varied. Overall, the evidence was graded from very‐low to moderate quality. All evidence was downgraded for lack of blinding and, for many comparisons, the effect estimates were too imprecise to make a valid judgement.Balloon versus vaginal PGE2: there may be little or no difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours (average risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.26; 7 studies; 1685 women; I² = 79%; low‐quality evidence) and there probably is little or no difference in caesarean sections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 28 studies; 6619 women; moderate‐quality evidence) between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal PGE2. A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.67; 6 studies; 1966 ...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

Vaan

Eikelder

Jozwiak

et al. 2019

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Self Cite

101

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

Vaan

Eikelder

Jozwiak

et al. 2023

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

Alfirević

Keeney

Dowswell

et al. 2016

Health Technol Assess

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMore than 150,000 pregnant women in England and Wales have their labour induced each year. Multiple pharmacological, mechanical and complementary methods are available to induce labour.ObjectiveTo assess the relative effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of labour induction methods and, data permitting, effects in different clinical subgroups.MethodsWe carried out a systematic review using Cochrane methods. The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register was searched (March 2014). This contains over 22,000 reports of controlled trials (published from 1923 onwards) retrieved from weekly searches of OVID MEDLINE (1966 to current); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library); EMBASE (1982 to current); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1984 to current); ClinicalTrials.gov; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Portal; and hand-searching of relevant conference proceedings and journals. We included randomised controlled trials examining interventions to induce labour compared with placebo, no treatment or other interventions in women eligible for third-trimester induction. We included outcomes relating to efficacy, safety and acceptability to women. In addition, for the economic analysis we searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Economic Evaluations Databases, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment database. We carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) using all of the available evidence, both direct and indirect, to produce estimates of the relative effects of each treatment compared with others in a network. We developed a de novo decision tree model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various methods. The costs included were the intervention and other hospital costs incurred (price year 2012–13). We reviewed the literature to identify preference-based utilities for the health-related outcomes in the model. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expected costs, utilities and net benefit. We represent uncertainty in the optimal intervention using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.ResultsWe identified 1190 studies; 611 were eligible for inclusion. The interventions most likely to achieve vaginal delivery (VD) within 24 hours were intravenous oxytocin with amniotomy [posterior rank 2; 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 1 to 9] and higher-dose (≥ 50 µg) vaginal misoprostol (rank 3; 95% CrI 1 to 6). Compared with placebo, several treatments reduced the odds of caesarean section, but we observed considerable uncertainty in treatment rankings. For uterine hyperstimulation, double-balloon catheter had the highest probability of being among the best three treatments, whereas vaginal misoprostol (≥ 50 µg) was most likely to increase the odds of excessive uterine activity. For other safety outcomes there were insufficient data or there was too much uncertainty to identify which treatments performed ‘best’. Few studies collected information on women’s views. Owing to incomplete reporting of the VD within 24 hours outcome, the cost-effectiveness analysis could compare only 20 interventions. The analysis suggested that most interventions have similar utility and differ mainly in cost. With a caveat of considerable uncertainty, titrated (low-dose) misoprostol solution and buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the highest likelihood of being cost-effective.LimitationsThere was considerable uncertainty in findings and there were insufficient data for some planned subgroup analyses.ConclusionsOverall, misoprostol and oxytocin with amniotomy (for women with favourable cervix) is more successful than other agents in achieving VD within 24 hours. The ranking according to safety of different methods was less clear. The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that titrated (low-dose) oral misoprostol solution resulted in the highest utility, whereas buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the lowest cost. There was a high degree of uncertainty as to the most cost-effective intervention.Future workFuture trials should be powered to detect a method that is more cost-effective than misoprostol solution and report outcomes included in this NMA.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005116.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

show abstract

289: Cost-effectiveness of induction of labor at term with a Foley catheter compared to prostaglandin E2 gel (based on the PROBAAT trial; registration NTR 1646)

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About