Exploring the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Compare Pharmaceutical Treatments for Menorrhagia

Background: The extra-welfarist theoretical framework tends to focus on health-related quality of life, whilst the welfarist framework captures a wider notion of well-being. EQ-5D and SF-6D are commonly used to value outcomes in chronic conditions with episodic symptoms, such as heavy menstrual bleeding (clinically termed menorrhagia). Because of their narrow-health focus and the condition’s periodic nature these measures may be unsuitable. A viable alternative measure is willingness to pay (WTP) from the welfarist framework. Objective: We explore the use of WTP in a preliminary cost-benefit analysis comparing pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia. Methods: A cost-benefit analysis was carried out based on an outcome of WTP. The analysis is based in the UK primary care setting over a 24-month time period, with a partial societal perspective. Ninety-nine women completed a WTP exercise from the ex-ante (pre-treatment/condition) perspective. Maximum average WTP values were elicited for two pharmaceutical treatments, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and oral treatment. Cost data were offset against WTP and the net present value derived for treatment. Qualitative information explaining the WTP values was also collected. Results: Oral treatment was indicated to be the most cost-beneficial intervention costing £107 less than LNG-IUS and generating £7 more benefits. The mean incremental net present value for oral treatment compared with LNG-IUS was £113. The use of the WTP approach was acceptable as very few protests and non-responses were observed. Conclusion: The preliminary cost-benefit analysis results recommend oral treatment as the first-line treatment for menorrhagia. The WTP approach is a feasible alternative to the conventional EQ-5D/SF-6D approaches and offers advantages by capturing benefits beyond health, which is particularly relevant in menorrhagia

Beyond maternal death: improving the quality of maternal care through national studies of ‘near-miss’ maternal morbidity

Knight M, Acosta C, Brocklehurst P, Cheshire A, Fitzpatrick K, Hinton L, Jokinen M, Kemp B, Kurinczuk JJ, Lewis G, Lindquist A, Locock L, Nair M, Patel N, Quigley M, Ridge D, Rivero-Arias O, Sellers S, Shah A on behalf of the UKNeS coapplicant group. Background Studies of maternal mortality have been shown to result in important improvements to women’s health. It is now recognised that in countries such as the UK, where maternal deaths are rare, the study of near-miss severe maternal morbidity provides additional information to aid disease prevention, treatment and service provision. Objectives To (1) estimate the incidence of specific near-miss morbidities; (2) assess the contribution of existing risk factors to incidence; (3) describe different interventions and their impact on outcomes and costs; (4) identify any groups in which outcomes differ; (5) investigate factors associated with maternal death; (6) compare an external confidential enquiry or a local review approach for investigating quality of care for affected women; and (7) assess the longer-term impacts. Methods Mixed quantitative and qualitative methods including primary national observational studies, database analyses, surveys and case studies overseen by a user advisory group. Setting Maternity units in all four countries of the UK. Participants Women with near-miss maternal morbidities, their partners and comparison women without severe morbidity. Main outcome measures The incidence, risk factors, management and outcomes of uterine rupture, placenta accreta, haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets (HELLP) syndrome, severe sepsis, amniotic fluid embolism and pregnancy at advanced maternal age (≥ 48 years at completion of pregnancy); factors associated with progression from severe morbidity to death; associations between severe maternal morbidity and ethnicity and socioeconomic status; lessons for care identified by local and external review; economic evaluation of interventions for management of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH); women’s experiences of near-miss maternal morbidity; long-term outcomes; and models of maternity care commissioned through experience-led and standard approaches. Results Women and their partners reported long-term impacts of near-miss maternal morbidities on their physical and mental health. Older maternal age and caesarean delivery are associated with severe maternal morbidity in both current and future pregnancies. Antibiotic prescription for pregnant or postpartum women with suspected infection does not necessarily prevent progression to severe sepsis, which may be rapidly progressive. Delay in delivery, of up to 48 hours, may be safely undertaken in women with HELLP syndrome in whom there is no fetal compromise. Uterine compression sutures are a cost-effective second-line therapy for PPH. Medical comorbidities are associated with a fivefold increase in the odds of maternal death from direct pregnancy complications. External reviews identified more specific clinical messages for care than local reviews. Experience-led commissioning may be used as a way to commission maternity services. Limitations This programme used observational studies, some with limited sample size, and the possibility of uncontrolled confounding cannot be excluded. Conclusions Implementation of the findings of this research could prevent both future severe pregnancy complications as well as improving the outcome of pregnancy for women. One of the clearest findings relates to the population of women with other medical and mental health problems in pregnancy and their risk of severe morbidity. Further research into models of pre-pregnancy, pregnancy and postnatal care is clearly needed

Duration and urgency of transfer in births planned at home and in freestanding midwifery units in England: secondary analysis of the Birthplace national prospective cohort study

Background: In England, there is a policy of offering healthy women with straightforward pregnancies a choice of birth setting. Options may include home or a freestanding midwifery unit (FMU). Transfer rates from these settings are around 20%, and higher for nulliparous women. The duration of transfer is of interest because of the potential for delay in access to specialist care and is also of concern to women. We aimed to estimate the duration of transfer in births planned at home and in FMUs and explore the effects of distance and urgency on duration. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of data collected in a national prospective cohort study including 27,842 ‘low risk’ women with singleton, term, ‘booked’ pregnancies, planning birth in FMUs or at home in England from April 2008 to April 2010. We described transfer duration using the median and interquartile range, for all transfers and those for reasons defined as potentially urgent or non-urgent, and used cumulative distribution curves to compare transfer duration by urgency. We explored the effect of distance for transfers from FMUs and described outcomes in women giving birth within 60 minutes of transfer. Results: The median overall transfer time, from decision to transfer to first OU assessment, was shorter in transfers from home compared with transfers from FMUs (49 vs 60 minutes; p < 0.001). The median duration of transfers before birth for potentially urgent reasons (home 42 minutes, FMU 50 minutes) was 8–10 minutes shorter compared with transfers for non-urgent reasons. In transfers for potentially urgent reasons, the median overall transfer time from FMUs within 20 km of an OU was 47 minutes, increasing to 55 minutes from FMUs 20-40 km away and 61 minutes in more remote FMUs. In women who gave birth within 60 minutes after transfer, adverse neonatal outcomes occurred in 1-2% of transfers. Conclusions: Transfers from home or FMU commonly take up to 60 minutes from decision to transfer, to first assessment in an OU, even for transfers for potentially urgent reasons. Most transfers are not urgent and emergencies and adverse outcomes are uncommon, but urgent transfer is more likely for nulliparous women

PROMISE: first-trimester progesterone therapy in women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriages - a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international multicentre trial and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Progesterone is essential to maintain a healthy pregnancy. Guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and a Cochrane review called for a definitive trial to test whether or not progesterone therapy in the first trimester could reduce the risk of miscarriage in women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriage (RM). The PROMISE trial was conducted to answer this question. A concurrent cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international multicentre study, with economic evaluation, conducted in hospital settings across the UK (36 sites) and in the Netherlands (nine sites). PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Women with unexplained RM (three or more first-trimester losses), aged between 18 and 39 years at randomisation, conceiving naturally and giving informed consent, received either micronised progesterone (Utrogestan(®), Besins Healthcare) at a dose of 400 mg (two vaginal capsules of 200 mg) or placebo vaginal capsules twice daily, administered vaginally from soon after a positive urinary pregnancy test (and no later than 6 weeks of gestation) until 12 completed weeks of gestation (or earlier if the pregnancy ended before 12 weeks). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Live birth beyond 24 completed weeks of gestation (primary outcome), clinical pregnancy at 6-8 weeks, ongoing pregnancy at 12 weeks, miscarriage, gestation at delivery, neonatal survival at 28 days of life, congenital abnormalities and resource use. METHODS: Participants were randomised after confirmation of pregnancy. Randomisation was performed online via a secure internet facility. Data were collected on four occasions of outcome assessment after randomisation, up to 28 days after birth. RESULTS: A total of 1568 participants were screened for eligibility. Of the 836 women randomised between 2010 and 2013, 404 received progesterone and 432 received placebo. The baseline data (age, body mass index, maternal ethnicity, smoking status and parity) of the participants were comparable in the two arms of the trial. The follow-up rate to primary outcome was 826 out of 836 (98.8%). The live birth rate in the progesterone group was 65.8% (262/398) and in the placebo group it was 63.3% (271/428), giving a relative risk of 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.94 to 1.15; p = 0.45). There was no evidence of a significant difference between the groups for any of the secondary outcomes. Economic analysis suggested a favourable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for decision-making but wide confidence intervals indicated a high level of uncertainty in the health benefits. Additional sensitivity analysis suggested the probability that progesterone would fall within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year as between 0.7145 and 0.7341. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that first-trimester progesterone therapy improves outcomes in women with a history of unexplained RM. LIMITATIONS: This study did not explore the effect of treatment with other progesterone preparations or treatment during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. FUTURE WORK: Future research could explore the efficacy of progesterone supplementation administered during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle in women attempting natural conception despite a history of RM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN92644181; EudraCT 2009-011208-42; Research Ethics Committee 09/H1208/44. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

The natural history of <i>Chlamydia trachomatis </i>infection in women:a multi-parameter evidence synthesis

Background and objectives: The evidence base supporting the National Chlamydia Screening Programme, initiated in 2003, has been questioned repeatedly, with little consensus on modelling assumptions, parameter values or evidence sources to be used in cost-effectiveness analyses. The purpose of this project was to assemble all available evidence on the prevalence and incidence of Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) in the UK and its sequelae, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), ectopic pregnancy (EP) and tubal factor infertility (TFI) to review the evidence base in its entirety, assess its consistency and, if possible, arrive at a coherent set of estimates consistent with all the evidence. Methods: Evidence was identified using ‘high-yield’ strategies. Bayesian Multi-Parameter Evidence Synthesis models were constructed for separate subparts of the clinical and population epidemiology of CT. Where possible, different types of data sources were statistically combined to derive coherent estimates. Where evidence was inconsistent, evidence sources were re-interpreted and new estimates derived on a post-hoc basis. Results: An internally coherent set of estimates was generated, consistent with a multifaceted evidence base, fertility surveys and routine UK statistics on PID and EP. Among the key findings were that the risk of PID (symptomatic or asymptomatic) following an untreated CT infection is 17.1% [95% credible interval (CrI) 6% to 29%] and the risk of salpingitis is 7.3% (95% CrI 2.2% to 14.0%). In women aged 16–24 years, screened at annual intervals, at best, 61% (95% CrI 55% to 67%) of CT-related PID and 22% (95% CrI 7% to 43%) of all PID could be directly prevented. For women aged 16–44 years, the proportions of PID, EP and TFI that are attributable to CT are estimated to be 20% (95% CrI 6% to 38%), 4.9% (95% CrI 1.2% to 12%) and 29% (95% CrI 9% to 56%), respectively. The prevalence of TFI in the UK in women at the end of their reproductive lives is 1.1%: this is consistent with all PID carrying a relatively high risk of reproductive damage, whether diagnosed or not. Every 1000 CT infections in women aged 16–44 years, on average, gives rise to approximately 171 episodes of PID and 73 of salpingitis, 2.0 EPs and 5.1 women with TFI at age 44 years. Conclusions and research recommendations: The study establishes a set of interpretations of the major studies and study designs, under which a coherent set of estimates can be generated. CT is a significant cause of PID and TFI. CT screening is of benefit to the individual, but detection and treatment of incident infection may be more beneficial. Women with lower abdominal pain need better advice on when to seek early medical attention to avoid risk of reproductive damage. The study provides new insights into the reproductive risks of PID and the role of CT. Further research is required on the proportions of PID, EP and TFI attributable to CT to confirm predictions made in this report, and to improve the precision of key estimates. The cost-effectiveness of screening should be re-evaluated using the findings of this report. Funding: The Medical Research Council grant G0801947

Cost-effectiveness analysis of prostaglandin E2 gel for the induction of labour at term

Objective  To estimate the cost-effectiveness of prostaglandin E2 (dinoprostone) vaginal gel for the induction of labour at term from the perspective of the UK’s National Health Service. Design  Economic evaluation conducted as part of a randomised controlled trial. Setting  Maternity department at a major teaching hospital in London, UK. Population  A cohort of 165 pregnant women presenting as cephalic between 36+6 and 41+6 weeks of gestation, for whom induction of labour was deemed necessary. Methods  Either 3-mg Prostin E2 vaginal tablets or 1- or 2-mg Prostin E2 vaginal gel were administered at 6-hourly intervals. Main outcome measures  Incremental cost per hour prevented between induction and delivery. The nonparametric bootstrap method was used to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and estimate net benefits at alternative cost-effectiveness thresholds. Results  Women receiving the gel accrued nonsignificantly higher costs (incremental cost £630; bootstrap 95% CI −£353, £2320; P = 0.43), and experienced a significantly reduced interval between induction and delivery (median of 1400 versus 1780 minutes; mean of 1711 versus 2765 minutes; P = 0.03). The incremental cost per hour prevented from induction of labour to delivery was estimated at £36. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £100 per hour of care prevented, the probability that the gel is cost-effective was estimated at 0.83, and the mean net benefit to the health services was estimated at £1121 (bootstrap 95% CI −£1133, £3379). The results were sensitive to the inclusion of neonatal costs in the analysis and the value of the cost-effectiveness threshold. Notably, excluding neonatal costs increased the probability that the gel is cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £100 per hour of care prevented to 0.99. Conclusions  This study suggests that prostaglandin E2 gel is probably more cost-effective than prostaglandin E2 tablets for the induction of labour at term. Given that the results are applicable to the general obstetric population requiring induction of labour at term, decision-makers should consider the likely economic impacts of their implementation