Ultrasound-guided manual vacuum aspiration (USG-MVA) with cervical preparation for early pregnancy loss: A cost-effectiveness analysis.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
21
04
2023
accepted:
25
10
2023
medline:
6
11
2023
pubmed:
3
11
2023
entrez:
3
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Approximately one in four women will experience a miscarriage in their lifetime. Ultrasound-guided manual vacuum aspiration (USG-MVA) is an ideal outpatient surgical treatment alternative to traditional surgical evacuation. We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of US-MVA with cervical preparation for treatment of early pregnancy loss from the perspective of public healthcare provider of Hong Kong. A decision-analytic model was designed to simulate outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of patients with early pregnancy loss on four interventions: (1) US-MVA, (2) misoprostol, (3) surgical evacuation of uterus by dilation and curettage (surgical evacuation), and (4) expectant care. Model inputs were retrieved from published literature and public data. Model outcome measures were total direct medical cost and disutility-adjusted life-year (DALY). Base-case model results were examined by sensitivity analysis. The expected DALYs (0.00141) and total direct medical cost (USD736) of US-MVA were the lowest of all interventions in base-case analysis, and US-MVA was the preferred cost-effective option. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the misoprostol group became less costly than the US-MVA group if the evacuation rate of misoprostol (base-case value 0.832) exceeded 0.920. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, At the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 49630 USD/DALY averted (1x gross domestic product per capita of Hong Kong), the US-MVA was cost-effective in 72.9% of the time. US-MVA appeared to be cost-saving and effective for treatment of early pregnancy loss from the perspective of public healthcare provider of Hong Kong.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Approximately one in four women will experience a miscarriage in their lifetime. Ultrasound-guided manual vacuum aspiration (USG-MVA) is an ideal outpatient surgical treatment alternative to traditional surgical evacuation. We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of US-MVA with cervical preparation for treatment of early pregnancy loss from the perspective of public healthcare provider of Hong Kong.
METHODS
A decision-analytic model was designed to simulate outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of patients with early pregnancy loss on four interventions: (1) US-MVA, (2) misoprostol, (3) surgical evacuation of uterus by dilation and curettage (surgical evacuation), and (4) expectant care. Model inputs were retrieved from published literature and public data. Model outcome measures were total direct medical cost and disutility-adjusted life-year (DALY). Base-case model results were examined by sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS
The expected DALYs (0.00141) and total direct medical cost (USD736) of US-MVA were the lowest of all interventions in base-case analysis, and US-MVA was the preferred cost-effective option. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the misoprostol group became less costly than the US-MVA group if the evacuation rate of misoprostol (base-case value 0.832) exceeded 0.920. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, At the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 49630 USD/DALY averted (1x gross domestic product per capita of Hong Kong), the US-MVA was cost-effective in 72.9% of the time.
CONCLUSIONS
US-MVA appeared to be cost-saving and effective for treatment of early pregnancy loss from the perspective of public healthcare provider of Hong Kong.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37922290
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294058
pii: PONE-D-23-12083
pmc: PMC10624279
doi:
Substances chimiques
Misoprostol
0E43V0BB57
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0294058Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Chung et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2005 Aug 25;353(8):761-9
pubmed: 16120856
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Feb;59(1):71-76
pubmed: 29672838
Contraception. 2023 Oct;126:110108
pubmed: 37394110
Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2022 Jun;147:106226
pubmed: 35580747
Hum Reprod. 2005 Oct;20(10):2873-8
pubmed: 15979988
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Jun 1;6:CD012602
pubmed: 34061352
BJOG. 2008 Jan;115(1):5-13
pubmed: 18053098
Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Nov;132(5):e197-e207
pubmed: 30157093
PLoS One. 2022 Feb 9;17(2):e0262894
pubmed: 35139105
Contraception. 2021 Jun;103(6):404-407
pubmed: 33476659