Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2014
Economic analysis of use of pessary to prevent preterm birth in women with multiple pregnancy (ProTWIN trial).
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Liem S M S, van Baaren G J, Delemarre F M C, Evers I M, Kleiverda G, van Loon A J, Langenveld J, Schuitemaker N, Sikkema J M, Opmeer B C, van Pampus M G, Mol B W J, Bekedam D J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a cervical pessary to prevent preterm delivery in women with a multiple pregnancy.
METHODS: The study design comprised an economic analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial evaluating cervical pessaries (ProTWIN). Women with a multiple pregnancy were included and an economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective. Costs were estimated between the time of randomization and 6 weeks postpartum. The prespecified subgroup of women with a cervical length (CL) < 25(th) centile (< 38 mm) was analyzed separately. The primary endpoint was poor perinatal outcome occurring up to 6 weeks postpartum. Direct medical costs and health outcomes were estimated and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for costs to prevent one poor outcome were calculated.
RESULTS: Mean costs in the pessary group (n = 401) were € 21,783 vs € 21,877 in the group in which no pessary was used (n = 407) (difference, -€ 94; 95% CI, -€ 5975 to € 5609). In the prespecified subgroup of women with a CL < 38 mm we demonstrated a significant reduction in poor perinatal outcome (12% vs 29%; RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.83). Mean costs in the pessary group (n = 78) were € 25,141 vs € 30,577 in the no-pessary group (n = 55) (difference, -€ 5436 (95% CI, -€ 11,001 to € 1456). In women with a CL < 38 mm, pessary treatment was the dominant strategy (more effective and less costly) with a probability of 94%.
CONCLUSION: Cervical pessaries in women with a multiple pregnancy involve costs comparable to those in women without pessary treatment. However, in women with a CL < 38 mm, treatment with a cervical pessary appears to be highly cost-effective.
METHODS: The study design comprised an economic analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial evaluating cervical pessaries (ProTWIN). Women with a multiple pregnancy were included and an economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective. Costs were estimated between the time of randomization and 6 weeks postpartum. The prespecified subgroup of women with a cervical length (CL) < 25(th) centile (< 38 mm) was analyzed separately. The primary endpoint was poor perinatal outcome occurring up to 6 weeks postpartum. Direct medical costs and health outcomes were estimated and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for costs to prevent one poor outcome were calculated.
RESULTS: Mean costs in the pessary group (n = 401) were € 21,783 vs € 21,877 in the group in which no pessary was used (n = 407) (difference, -€ 94; 95% CI, -€ 5975 to € 5609). In the prespecified subgroup of women with a CL < 38 mm we demonstrated a significant reduction in poor perinatal outcome (12% vs 29%; RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.83). Mean costs in the pessary group (n = 78) were € 25,141 vs € 30,577 in the no-pessary group (n = 55) (difference, -€ 5436 (95% CI, -€ 11,001 to € 1456). In women with a CL < 38 mm, pessary treatment was the dominant strategy (more effective and less costly) with a probability of 94%.
CONCLUSION: Cervical pessaries in women with a multiple pregnancy involve costs comparable to those in women without pessary treatment. However, in women with a CL < 38 mm, treatment with a cervical pessary appears to be highly cost-effective.