Type of publication:
Okeke Ogwulu, C B; Williams, E V; Chu, J J; Devall, A J; Beeson, L E; Hardy, P; Cheed, V; Yongzhong, S; Jones, L L; La Fontaine Papadopoulos, J H; Bender-Atik, R; Brewin, J; Hinshaw, K; Choudhary, M; Ahmed, A; Naftalin, J; Nunes, N; Oliver, A; Izzat, F; Bhatia, K; Hassan, I; Jeve, Y; Hamilton, J; Deb, S; Bottomley, C; Ross, J; Watkins, L; *Underwood, M; Cheong, Y; Kumar, C S; Gupta, P; Small, R; Pringle, S; Hodge, F S; Shahid, A; Horne, A W; Quenby, S; Gallos, I D; Coomarasamy, A; Roberts, T E
BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology; May 2021 [epub ahead of print]
OBJECTIVE To assess the cost-effectiveness of mifepristone and misoprostol (MifeMiso) compared with misoprostol only for the medical management of a missed miscarriage. DESIGN Within-trial economic evaluation and model-based analysis to set the findings in the context of the wider economic evidence for a range of comparators. Incremental costs and outcomes were calculated using non-parametric bootstrapping and reported using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Analyses were performed from the NHS perspective.SETTING28 UK NHS early pregnancy units.PARTICIPANTS711 women aged 16-39 years with ultrasound evidence of a missed miscarriage. INTERVENTIONS Mifepristone and misoprostol or matched placebo and misoprostol tablets. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Cost per additional successfully managed miscarriage and QALYs. RESULTS For the within-trial analysis, MifeMiso intervention resulted in an absolute effect difference of 6.6% (95% CI: 0.7% to 12.5%) per successfully managed miscarriage and QALYs difference of 0.04% (95% CI: -0.01% to 0.1%). The average cost per successfully managed miscarriage was lower in the MifeMiso arm than in the placebo and misoprostol arm, with a cost-saving of £182 (95% CI: £26 to £338). Hence, MifeMiso intervention dominated the use of misoprostol alone. The model-based analysis showed that MifeMiso intervention is dominant compared to expectant management and the current medical management strategy. However, the model-based evidence suggests that the intervention is a less effective but less costly strategy than surgical management. CONCLUSIONS The within-trial analysis found that based on cost-effectiveness grounds, MifeMiso intervention is likely to be recommended by decision-makers for the medical management of women presenting with a missed miscarriage.
Link to full-text [open access – no password required]