COST-EFFECTIVENESS IN LABOR INDUCTION WITH DINOPROSTONE

Journal article


Authors/Editors


Research Areas

No matching items found.


Publication Details

Author list: Javier CHF, Eduardo PJJ, Auxiliadora RB, Fernando CF
Publisher: Unknown
Publication year: 2010
Journal: Atencion Farmaceutica (1139-7357)
Volume number: 12
Issue number: 6
Start page: 359
End page: 368
Number of pages: 10
ISSN: 1139-7357
Languages: English-Great Britain (EN-GB)


Abstract

Objective: To determine which one of the two forms of dinoprostone, endocervical gel and intrauterine device, at typical doses, has a better cost-effectiveness relation for cervix maturation before labor induction.Method: We designed a decision tree that captured the effects of drugs and their adverse events. The hospital's perspective was the one being used. The time horizon was less than a year No indirect or intangible costs were considered, only those direct health costs for each alternative (in 2010 Euros). We performed a univariate and bivariate sensitivity analysis by extensively changing the model's fundamental parameters around the basal situation, and proceeded to test the model's solidity by changing its structure.Results: 0.5 mg Prepidil endocervical gel administered twice a day is an option (C/E = 8.97) dominated by a 10 mg Propess (R) dose by vaginal way for cervix maturation before labor induction in nulliparous pregnant women (C/E = 1.46). The univariate and bivariate sensitivity analysis results of all tested parameters proved the model's robustness. The same results were obtained with the structural sensitivity analysis.Conclusion: The treatment of nulliparous pregnant women at term with immature uterine neck with a dose of 10mg Propess (R) of vaginal liberation (dino-prostone) showed a more favorable cost-effectiveness relation than two doses six hours apart of 0.5 mg Prepidil (R) endocervical gel (2.5 ml).


Keywords

No matching items found.


Documents

No matching items found.

Last updated on 2019-23-08 at 11:15