The cost-effectiveness of progesterone in preventing miscarriages in women with early pregnancy bleeding: an economic evaluation based on the PRISM trial.
Abortion, Spontaneous
/ economics
Adolescent
Adult
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Double-Blind Method
Female
Humans
Live Birth
/ economics
Pregnancy
Progesterone
/ economics
Progestins
/ economics
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
State Medicine
Treatment Outcome
United Kingdom
Uterine Hemorrhage
/ complications
Young Adult
Cost-effectiveness
economic evaluation
miscarriage
progesterone
Journal
BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology
ISSN: 1471-0528
Titre abrégé: BJOG
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100935741
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2020
05 2020
Historique:
accepted:
12
12
2019
pubmed:
1
2
2020
medline:
25
4
2020
entrez:
1
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To assess the cost-effectiveness of progesterone compared with placebo in preventing pregnancy loss in women with early pregnancy vaginal bleeding. Economic evaluation alongside a large multi-centre randomised placebo-controlled trial. Forty-eight UK NHS early pregnancy units. Four thousand one hundred and fifty-three women aged 16-39 years with bleeding in early pregnancy and ultrasound evidence of an intrauterine sac. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from National Health Service (NHS) and NHS and Personal Social Services perspectives. Subgroup analyses were carried out on women with one or more and three or more previous miscarriages. Cost per additional live birth at ≥34 weeks of gestation. Progesterone intervention led to an effect difference of 0.022 (95% CI -0.004 to 0.050) in the trial. The mean cost per woman in the progesterone group was £76 (95% CI -£559 to £711) more than the mean cost in the placebo group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for progesterone compared with placebo was £3305 per additional live birth. For women with at least one previous miscarriage, progesterone was more effective than placebo with an effect difference of 0.055 (95% CI 0.014-0.096) and this was associated with a cost saving of £322 (95% CI -£1318 to £673). The results suggest that progesterone is associated with a small positive impact and a small additional cost. Both subgroup analyses were more favourable, especially for women who had one or more previous miscarriages. Given available evidence, progesterone is likely to be a cost-effective intervention, particularly for women with previous miscarriage(s). Progesterone treatment is likely to be cost-effective in women with early pregnancy bleeding and a history of miscarriage.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32003141
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.16068
pmc: PMC7187468
doi:
Substances chimiques
Progestins
0
Progesterone
4G7DS2Q64Y
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
757-767Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/N022556/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : NIHR
Pays : International
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_16003
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : the Medical Research Council, the Central Commissioning Facility
Pays : International
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G0802808
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 12/167/26
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : UK NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme
ID : HTA 12/167/26
Pays : International
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G0700452
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : NHS
Pays : International
Organisme : NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, the Health Technology Assessment Programme
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
Références
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004 Jul 15;115(1):51-4
pubmed: 15223165
Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2000 Oct;14(5):839-54
pubmed: 11023804
Trials. 2013 Dec 05;14:421
pubmed: 24308301
Health Econ. 2009 Apr;18(4):487-94
pubmed: 18615854
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2001 Oct;1(1):25-36
pubmed: 19807505
BMJ. 2013 Jun 19;346:f3676
pubmed: 23783355
Value Health. 2013 Mar-Apr;16(2):231-50
pubmed: 23538175
BMJ. 2012 Dec 12;345:e8136
pubmed: 23236034
BJOG. 2010 Sep;117(10):1211-9
pubmed: 20618319
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015 Sep 01;15:188
pubmed: 26323522
BJOG. 2006 Aug;113(8):879-89
pubmed: 16827823
BJOG. 2020 May;127(6):757-767
pubmed: 32003141
Nature. 2019 Mar;567(7748):305-307
pubmed: 30894741
Stat Med. 2011 Feb 20;30(4):377-99
pubmed: 21225900
Med Decis Making. 1990 Jul-Sep;10(3):212-4
pubmed: 2115096
N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373(22):2141-8
pubmed: 26605928
Stat Med. 2000 Dec 15;19(23):3219-36
pubmed: 11113956
N Engl J Med. 2019 May 9;380(19):1815-1824
pubmed: 31067371
N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 17;381(16):1597
pubmed: 31618557