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

Background: More 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. Objective: To assess the relative effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of labour induction methods and, data permitting, effects in different clinical subgroups. Methods: We 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. Results: We 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. Limitations: There was considerable uncertainty in findings and there were insufficient data for some planned subgroup analyses. Conclusions: Overall, 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

Weight of preterm newborns during the first twelve weeks of life

A longitudinal and prospective study was carried out at two state-operated maternity hospitals in Belo Horizonte during 1996 in order to assess the weight of preterm appropriate-for-gestational-age newborns during the first twelve weeks of life. Two hundred and sixty appropriate-for-gestational-age preterm infants with birth weight <2500 g were evaluated weekly. The infants were divided into groups based on birth weight at 250-g intervals. Using weight means, somatic growth curves were constructed and adjusted to Count's model. Absolute (g/day) and relative (g kg-1 day-1) velocity curves were obtained from a derivative of this model. The growth curve was characterized by weight loss during the 1st week (4-6 days) ranging from 5.9 to 13.3% (the greater the percentage, the lower the birth weight), recovery of birth weight within 17 and 21 days, and increasingly higher rates of weight gain after the 3rd week. These rates were proportional to birth weight when expressed as g/day (the lowest and the highest birth weight neonates gained 15.9 and 30.1 g/day, respectively). However, if expressed as g kg-1 day-1, the rates were inversely proportional to birth weight (during the 3rd week, the lowest and the highest weight newborns gained 18.0 and 11.5 g kg-1 day-1, respectively). During the 12th week the rates were similar for all groups (7.5 to 10.2 g kg-1 day-1). The relative velocity accurately reflects weight gain of preterm infants who are appropriate for gestational age and, in the present study, it was inversely proportional to birth weight, with a peak during the 3rd week of life, and a homogeneous behavior during the 12th week for all weight groups

Different methods for the induction of labour in outpatient settings

BACKGROUND: Induction of labour is carried out for a variety of indications and using a range of pharmacological, mechanical and other methods. For women at low risk, some methods of induction of labour may be suitable for use in outpatient settings. OBJECTIVES: To examine pharmacological and mechanical interventions to induce labour in outpatient settings in terms of feasibility, effectiveness, maternal satisfaction, healthcare costs and, where information is available, safety. The review complements existing reviews on labour induction examining effectiveness and safety. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register (December 2009) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials examining outpatient cervical ripening or induction of labour with pharmacological agents or mechanical methods. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed eligible papers for risk of bias. We checked all data after entry into review manager software. MAIN RESULTS: We included 28 studies with 2616 women examining different methods of induction of labour where women received treatment at home or were sent home after initial treatment and monitoring in hospital. Studies examined vaginal and intracervical PGE(2), vaginal and oral misoprostol, isosorbide mononitrate, mifepristone, oestrogens, and acupuncture. Overall, the results demonstrate that outpatient induction of labour is feasible and that important adverse events are rare. There was no strong evidence that agents used to induce labour in outpatient settings had an impact (positive or negative) on maternal or neonatal health. There was some evidence that, compared to placebo or no treatment, induction agents reduced the need for further interventions to induce labour, and shortened the interval from intervention to birth. We were unable to pool results on outcomes relating to progress in labour as studies tended to measure a very broad range of outcomes. There was no evidence that induction agents increased interventions in labour such as operative deliveries. Only two studies provided information on women’s views about the induction process, and overall there was very little information on the costs to health service providers of different methods of labour induction in outpatient settings. AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS: Induction of labour in outpatient settings appears feasible. We do not have sufficient evidence to know which induction methods are preferred by women, or the interventions that are most effective and safe to use in outpatient settings