title: Reduction in resource use with the misoprostol vaginal insert vs the dinoprostone vaginal insert for labour induction: a model-based analysis from a United Kingdom healthcare perspective.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  In view of the increasing pressure on the UK's maternity units, new methods of labour induction are required to alleviate the burden on the National Health Service, while maintaining the quality of care for women during delivery. A model was developed to evaluate the resource use associated with misoprostol vaginal inserts (MVIs) and dinoprostone vaginal inserts (DVIs) for the induction of labour at term.
  
  
  METHODS
  The one-year Markov model estimated clinical outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of 1397 pregnant women (parous and nulliparous) induced with either MVI or DVI at Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK. Efficacy and safety data were based on published and unpublished results from a phase III, double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Resource use was modelled using data from labour induction during antenatal admission to patient discharge from Southmead Hospital. The model's sensitivity to key parameters was explored in deterministic multi-way and scenario-based analyses.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Over one year, the model results indicated MVI use could lead to a reduction of 10,201 h (28.9%) in the time to vaginal delivery, and an increase of 121% and 52% in the proportion of women achieving vaginal delivery at 12 and 24 h, respectively, compared with DVI use. Inducing women with the MVI could lead to a 25.2% reduction in the number of midwife shifts spent managing labour induction and 451 fewer hospital bed days. These resource utilisation reductions may equate to a potential 27.4% increase in birthing capacity at Southmead Hospital, when using the MVI instead of the DVI.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Resource use, in addition to clinical considerations, should be considered when making decisions about labour induction methods. Our model analysis suggests the MVI is an effective method for labour induction, and could lead to a considerable reduction in resource use compared with the DVI, thereby alleviating the increasing burden of labour induction in UK hospitals.
authors: Spire Bristol Hospital, The Glen, Redland Hill, Durdham Down, Bristol, BS6 6UT, UK.
authors: T
authors: T
authors: Draycott
authors: Spire Bristol Hospital, The Glen, Redland Hill, Durdham Down, Bristol, BS6 6UT, UK.
authors: H
authors: H
authors: van der Nelson
authors: Covance Inc., Clove Building, 4 Maguire Street, London, SE1 2NQ, UK.
authors: C
authors: C
authors: Montouchet
authors: Covance Inc., Clove Building, 4 Maguire Street, London, SE1 2NQ, UK. lewis.ruff@covance.com.
authors: L
authors: L
authors: Ruff
authors: Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, HEOR, Kay Fiskers Plads 11, DK-2300, Copenhagen S, Denmark.|Center for Medical Technology Assessment (CMT), Linköping University, SE-581 83, Linköping, Sweden.
authors: F
authors: F
authors: Andersson
mesh_terms: D000282:Administration, Intravaginal; D000328:Adult; D036861:Delivery, Obstetric; D015232:Dinoprostone / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D005260:Female; D006295:Health Resources / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006801:Humans; D007751:Labor, Induced / Q000379:methods*; D016595:Misoprostol / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D010120:Oxytocics / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D010298:Parity; D011247:Pregnancy; D006113:United Kingdom
chemical_list: D010120:Oxytocics; D016595:Misoprostol; D015232:Dinoprostone