K F Walker1, M Dritsaki2, G Bugg3, M Macpherson3, C McCormick3, N Grace3, C Wildsmith4, L Bradshaw5, Gcs Smith6, J G Thornton1. 1. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Clinical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 2. Oxford Clinical Trials Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 3. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK. 4. Stillbirth and neonatal death charity (SANDS), London, UK. 5. Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 6. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Induction of labour at 39 weeks for nulliparous women aged 35 years and over may prevent stillbirths and does not increase caesarean births, so it may be popular. But the overall costs and benefits of such a policy have not been compared. DESIGN: A cost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial (the 35/39 trial). SETTING: Obstetric departments of 38 UK National Health Service hospitals and one UK primary-care trust. POPULATION: Nulliparous women aged 35 years or over on their expected due date, with a singleton live fetus in a cephalic presentation. METHODS: Costs were estimated from the National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated based on patient responses to the EQ-5D at baseline and 4 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data on antenatal care, mode of delivery, analgesia in labour, method of induction, EQ-5D (baseline and 4 weeks postnatal) and participant-administered postnatal health resource use data were collected. RESULTS: The intervention was associated with a mean cost saving of £263 and a small additional gain in QALYs (though this was not statistically significant), even without considering any possible QALY gains from stillbirth prevention. CONCLUSION: A policy of induction of labour at 39 weeks for women of advanced maternal age would save money. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: A policy of induction of labour at 39 weeks of gestation for women of advanced maternal age would save money.
OBJECTIVE: Induction of labour at 39 weeks for nulliparous women aged 35 years and over may prevent stillbirths and does not increase caesarean births, so it may be popular. But the overall costs and benefits of such a policy have not been compared. DESIGN: A cost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial (the 35/39 trial). SETTING: Obstetric departments of 38 UK National Health Service hospitals and one UK primary-care trust. POPULATION: Nulliparous women aged 35 years or over on their expected due date, with a singleton live fetus in a cephalic presentation. METHODS: Costs were estimated from the National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated based on patient responses to the EQ-5D at baseline and 4 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data on antenatal care, mode of delivery, analgesia in labour, method of induction, EQ-5D (baseline and 4 weeks postnatal) and participant-administered postnatal health resource use data were collected. RESULTS: The intervention was associated with a mean cost saving of £263 and a small additional gain in QALYs (though this was not statistically significant), even without considering any possible QALY gains from stillbirth prevention. CONCLUSION: A policy of induction of labour at 39 weeks for women of advanced maternal age would save money. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: A policy of induction of labour at 39 weeks of gestation for women of advanced maternal age would save money.
Authors: Gordon Cs Smith; Alexandros A Moraitis; David Wastlund; Jim G Thornton; Aris Papageorghiou; Julia Sanders; Alexander Ep Heazell; Stephen C Robson; Ulla Sovio; Peter Brocklehurst; Edward Cf Wilson Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: William A Grobman; Grecio Sandoval; Uma M Reddy; Alan T N Tita; Robert M Silver; Gail Mallett; Kim Hill; Madeline Murguia Rice; Yasser Y El-Sayed; Ronald J Wapner; Dwight J Rouse; George R Saade; John M Thorp; Suneet P Chauhan; Jay D Iams; Edward K Chien; Brian M Casey; Ronald S Gibbs; Sindhu K Srinivas; Geeta K Swamy; Hyagriv N Simhan; George A Macones Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Hannah E Knight; David A Cromwell; Ipek Gurol-Urganci; Katie Harron; Jan H van der Meulen; Gordon C S Smith Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Brett D Einerson; Richard E Nelson; Grecio Sandoval; M Sean Esplin; D Ware Branch; Torri D Metz; Robert M Silver; William A Grobman; Uma M Reddy; Michael Varner Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 7.623
Authors: Mohamed El Alili; Johanna M van Dongen; Judith A F Huirne; Maurits W van Tulder; Judith E Bosmans Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Sophie Relph; Louisa Delaney; Alexandra Melaugh; Matias C Vieira; Jane Sandall; Asma Khalil; Dharmintra Pasupathy; Andy Healey Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 2.692