Cost effectiveness of nifedipine compared with atosiban in the treatment of threatened preterm birth (APOSTEL III trial).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment with nifedipine compared with atosiban in women with threatened preterm birth. DESIGN: An economic analysis alongside a randomised clinical trial (the APOSTEL III study). SETTING: Obstetric departments of 12 tertiary hospitals and seven secondary hospitals in the Netherlands and Belgium. POPULATION: Women with threatened preterm birth between 25 and 34 weeks of gestation, randomised for tocolysis with either nifedipine or atosiban. METHODS: We performed an economic analysis from a societal perspective. We estimated costs from randomisation until discharge. Analyses for singleton and multiple pregnancies were performed separately. The robustness of our findings was evaluated in sensitivity analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean costs and differences were calculated per woman treated with nifedipine or atosiban. Health outcomes were expressed as the prevalence of a composite of adverse perinatal outcomes. RESULTS: Mean costs per patients were significantly lower in the nifedipine group [singleton pregnancies: €34,897 versus €43,376, mean difference (MD) -€8479 [95% confidence interval (CI) -€14,327 to -€2016)]; multiple pregnancies: €90,248 versus €102,292, MD -€12,044 (95% CI -€21,607 to € -1671). There was a non-significantly higher death rate in the nifedipine group. The difference in costs was mainly driven by a lower neonatal intensive care unit admission (NICU) rate in the nifedipine group. CONCLUSION: Treatment with nifedipine in women with threatened preterm birth results in lower costs when compared with treatment with atosiban. However, the safety of nifedipine warrants further investigation. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: In women with threatened preterm birth, tocolysis using nifedipine results in lower costs when compared with atosiban.

[Atosiban treatment for preterm labor--financial considerations and savings by implementing clinical guidelines].

INTRODUCTION: Preterm delivery is a significant cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality. Pregnant women, with symptoms and signs consistent with preterm labor, can be treated with various tocolytic drugs. Atosiban is one of many drugs indicated to arrest imminent preterm labor. Various studies show that the efficacy of atosiban is similar to other tocolytic drugs. The main advantage of atosiban is a relativeLy low incidence of adverse maternal reactions. Its considerable shortcoming is the financial cost, compared to other available drugs. AIM: In view of its cost, we have decided to implement a strict protocol to direct the use of atosiban, with the intent to reduce costs, without hampering quality of care. STUDY METHODS: The protocol was implemented from July 2009, and it outlines the medical and procedural terms to use atosiban. We compared similar time periods before and after implementation of the protocol. The outcomes compared included: treatment success, rates of preterm deliveries and financial costs. RESULTS: Within the timeframe that the protocol was implemented, we have been able to demonstrate a 40% reduction in atosiban related costs, compared to a parallel period, when the clinical guidelines were not implemented. This translates into savings of about NIS 40,000 (New Israeli Shekel) (approximately $10,000). This was achieved without an increase in the rate of preterm deliveries. CONCLUSION: Implementing and enforcing a simple protocol of supervision on the use of atosiban enables a considerable reduction of financial costs related to atosiban, without hampering medical care.

Atosiban versus betamimetics in the treatment of preterm labour in Italy: clinical and economic importance of side-effects.

The aim of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of atosiban compared to betamimetics in the treatment of preterm labour within the Italian setting. A systematic literature review identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing atosiban with betamimetics. Meta-analysis of nine RCTs determined that atosiban and betamimetics had similar efficacy in delaying preterm birth by at least 48 h (p=0.910). Use of atosiban was associated with significantly fewer adverse events (p<0.008). Results demonstrate that atosiban is cost-saving versus ritodrine or isoxuprine. Atosiban cost savings are €657 per patient from the National Health Service payer's perspective; €299 at 18 h of tocolysis to €189 at 48 h from the hospital's perspective. The respective values versus isoxuprine were €303 and €199. From the combined perspective, using atosiban versus ritodrine saved from €425 to €316; and versus isoxuprine from €429 to €326. Owing to its superior safety profile, atosiban is cost-saving versus betamimetics in the treatment of preterm labour in Italy from the payer's, hospital's and combined perspectives. With the approximate 40,000 annual preterm births in Italy the annual savings could be in excess of €13 million for the payer or €3.8-6.2 million for the hospitals.

The influence of tocolytic drugs on cardiac function, large arteries, and resistance vessels.

PURPOSE: Beta-2 adrenoceptor agonistic drugs like ritodrine have been the reference tocolytic drugs, but are associated with cardiovascular side-effects. Atosiban, a newer drug, is a competitive antagonist of oxytocin and has been claimed to have fewer cardiovascular side effects. Until now, there has mainly been a subjective reporting of adverse reactions and few objective cardiovascular data. Evaluation of the acute effects of therapeutic doses of ritodrine and atosiban compared with placebo on cardiac function, large artery properties, blood pressure, and resistance vessels. METHODS: A double-blind, randomized trial was carried out in 20 non-pregnant female volunteers. Hemodynamic measurements were made under standardized conditions during kinetic steady state. Cardiac output was measured with echocardiography, large artery properties with an echo-tracking device. The effect on the microcirculation was estimated using the total peripheral resistance index (TPRI). RESULTS: Atosiban did not differ from placebo. With ritodrine, cardiac function increased by 79% compared with placebo because of a rise in heart rate (91%). TPRI decreased by 48%. Ritodrine increased the distensibility of the common carotid artery by 62% and the compliance by 83%, independent of blood pressure. Compliance of the common femoral artery increased independently of pressure by 33% and the distensibility by 59%. Aortic pulse wave velocity was not influenced by either medication. CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows potential beneficial vascular effects of ritodrine that are counterbalanced by the cardiac effects. Atosiban has no clinically relevant cardiovascular effects and may be a good alternative for ritodrine in pregnant women at risk of cardiovascular complications.

Healthcare evaluation of the use of atosiban and fibronectin for the management of pre-term labour.

Our objective was to assess the effectiveness, safety and efficiency of a protocol combining fetal fibronectin diagnostic testing and atosiban tocolysis for the management of pre-term labour, using a combination of narrative review and economic modelling. We compared the proposed protocol to alternatives using nifedipine with or without fetal fibronectin. We have found that the proposed protocol may be safer and more acceptable by women than the alternatives, and its use can result in significant cost-savings.

Atosiban versus betamimetics in the treatment of preterm labour in Germany: an economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The use of tocolytics is central in delaying birth; however, therapeutic options vary in effectiveness and adverse events profiles, which in turn could have consequences for medical resource use and cost of treatment. Betamimetics are commonly used tocolytic agents, but their mechanism of action affects multiple organ systems leading to numerous adverse events. The availability of an oxytocin receptor antagonist, specific for prevention of preterm labour, offers a treatment option that merits further evaluation. We aimed to compare economic implications of tocolysis using atosiban and betamimetics, considering treatment efficacy and safety, as well as cost consequences of treatment of associated adverse events. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified six randomised clinical trials, three of them double-blinded, comparing atosiban with betamimetics, in which tocolysis was initiated within 48 hours of admission. Cost of drug treatment was calculated based on trial protocols and German hospital drug purchase costs. G-DRG Grouper was used to obtain cost per case. The drug regimen was concordant with the German guidelines for the management of preterm labour, with two alternative modalities of fenoterol analysed: continuous or bolus administrations. RESULTS: According to the results of the meta-analysis of the three double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trials, atosiban and betamimetics have similar efficacy (RR = 0.99, 95%CI:0.94-1.04, p = 0.772). Compared to betamimetics, use of atosiban was associated with a significantly lower frequency of adverse events for tachycardia, palpitation, vomiting, headache, hyperglycaemia, tremor, dyspnoea, chest pain, hypocalemia and foetal tachycardia. In our economic analysis, cost savings from using atosiban versus continuous, or bolus, fenoterol was 423euro per patient from the payer's perspective. From the hospital's perspective, savings from using atosiban versus continuous fenoterol ranged from 259euro for 18 hours of tocolysis to 105euro for 48 hours; the respective values for bolus fenoterol were 244euro and 55euro. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis atosiban was cost saving versus both continuous and bolus fenoterol in 87%-100% of scenarios. CONCLUSION: In a German setting, atosiban is cost saving versus betamimetics in the treatment of preterm labour from the payer, hospital and combined perspectives. Cost savings stem from the superior safety profile of atosiban.

[Comparison of the cost of treatment of premature labor with atosiban or beta-sympathomimetics from the perspective of the health care payer--a pharmacoeconomic model]. / Srovnání nákladu na lécbu predcasného porodu atosibanem nebo beta-sympatomimetiky z perspektivy plátce zdravotní péce--farmakoekonomický model.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost of treating premature delivery with atosiban or beta-sympatomimetic drugs (fenoterol and hexoprenalin) from the perspective of health care payer--the medical insurance company. DESIGN: A pharmaco-economic model based on the results of randomized, controlled clinical study. SETTING: Hospital Pharmacy at Vitkovice Hospital of Blessed Mary Antonia, Ostrava. METHODS: The study is based on the application of clinical decision-making analysis, which includes results of a randomized controlled clinical study as well as data on the cost of clinical interventions and cost of drug therapy. The pharmaco-economic model was created from the perspective of the payer of health care--the insurance company. This model presumes the administration of atosiban or beta-sympatomimetic drugs (fenoterol and hexoprenalin) for the period of 18 and 48 h and the therapy of possible untoward effects for the next 72 h after the administration of the drugs. The analysis of sensitivity of pharmacokinetic model also employs so called low and high estimate of supplementary cost for the treatment of untoward effects. RESULTS: After the administration of the drugs for the period of 18 h the total cost of the payer of medical care was in the range of 21,914.5-21,974.4 CKr in atosiban, 19,878.7-22,661.4 CKr in fenoterol and 19,942.9-21,974.4 CKr in hexoprenalin. In the administration of the drugs for 48 h, the overall cost of the payer of medical care was in the range of 43,082.5-43,142.4 CKr in atosiban, 19,960.3-23,150.7 CKr in fenoterol and 20,131.3-23,574.0 in hexoprenalin. CONCLUSIONS: This study compared overall cost associated with hospitalization of a premature delivery from the perspective of the medical care payer, i.e. the health insurance company. The authors applied a pharmaco-economic model evaluating hospitalization for the period of 48 h and subsequent therapy of possible untoward effects for the period of up to 72 h. In case of a shorter administration of atosiban (up to 18 h) the overall cost of hospitalization for premature delivery for the period of 48 h from the point of view of medical insurance company is basically comparable with the administration of beta-sympatomimetic drugs. If atosiban is administered for more than 18 h, the overall cost of hospitalization is higher than with beta-sympatomimetic drugs, and the cost increases in relation to the duration of atosiban administration.