Comparing induction of labour with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter at term: cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled multi-centre non-inferiority trial

M. L.G. ten Eikelder* (Corresponding Author), G. J. van Baaren, K. Oude Rengerink, M. Jozwiak, J. W. de Leeuw, G. Kleiverda, I. Evers, K. de Boer, J. Brons, K. W.M. Bloemenkamp, B. W. Mol

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To assess the costs of labour induction with oral misoprostol versus Foley catheter. Design: Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial. Setting: Obstetric departments of six tertiary and 23 secondary care hospitals in the Netherlands. Population: Women with a viable term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, intact membranes, an unfavourable cervix (Bishop score <6) without a previous caesarean section, were randomised for labour induction with oral misoprostol (n = 924) or Foley catheter (n = 921). Methods: We performed economic analysis from a hospital perspective. We estimated direct medical costs associated with healthcare utilisation from randomisation until discharge. The robustness of our findings was evaluated in sensitivity analyses. Main outcome measures: Mean costs and differences were calculated per women induced with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter. Results: Mean costs per woman in the oral misoprostol group and Foley catheter group were €4470 versus €4158, respectively [mean difference €312, 95% confidence interval (CI) –€508 to €1063]. Multiple sensitivity analyses did not change these conclusions. However, if cervical ripening for low-risk pregnancies in the Foley catheter group was carried out in an outpatient setting, with admittance to labour ward only at start of active labour, the difference would be €4470 versus €3489, respectively (mean difference €981, 95% CI €225–1817). Conclusions: Oral misoprostol and Foley catheter generate comparable costs. Cervical ripening outside labour ward with a Foley catheter could potentially save almost €1000 per woman. Tweetable abstract: Oral misoprostol or Foley catheter for induction of labour generates comparable costs.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)375-383
Number of pages9
JournalBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Volume125
Issue number3
Early online date8 Aug 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2018

Bibliographical note

Funding The PROBAAT-II study was partially funded by FondsNut-sOhra, a Dutch capital fund for Health Research and Development.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all women who participated in the trial. We would also like to thank all members of the Consortium for studies in Womens’ Health (http://www.studies-obsgyn.nl/), especially the research nurses and midwives, who among others made this study possible.

Keywords

  • Cost-effectiveness
  • Foley catheter
  • induction of labour
  • oral misoprostol

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparing induction of labour with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter at term: cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled multi-centre non-inferiority trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this