Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35780811›Full record

Trial reportAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2022

Medical management of early pregnancy loss is cost-effective compared with office uterine aspiration.

Divyah Nagendra, Sarah M Gutman, Nathanael C Koelper, Sandra E Loza-Avalos, Sarita Sonalkar, Courtney A Schreiber, Heidi S Harvie

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Divyah NagendraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cambridge Health Alliance, Cambridge, MA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Sarah M GutmanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Electronic address: sarah.gutman@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
Nathanael C KoelperDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Sandra E Loza-AvalosDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Sarita SonalkarDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Courtney A SchreiberDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Heidi S HarvieDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
University of Pennsylvania · USCambridge Health Alliance · US

Funding

WOMENS REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH CAREER DEVELOPMENTK12HD001265 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Elizabeth A Howell · 1998 to 2026
$7.5M
Comparative Effectiveness of Pregnancy Failure Management Regimens (Pre-Fai-R)R01HD071920 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI SCHREIBER, COURTNEY A. · 2013 to 2017
$2.8M
NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD001265NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD071920
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly pregnancy loss, also referred to as miscarriage, is common, affecting approximately 1 million people in the United States annually. Early pregnancy loss can be treated with expectant management, medications, or surgical procedures-strategies that differ in patient experience, effectiveness, and cost. One of the medications used for early pregnancy loss treatment, mifepristone, is uniquely regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.

objectiveThis study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness from the healthcare sector perspective of medical management of early pregnancy loss, using the standard of care medication regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol, with that of office uterine aspiration. STUDY

designWe developed a decision analytical model to compare the cost-effectiveness of early pregnancy loss treatment with medical management with that of office uterine aspiration. Data on medical management came from the Pregnancy Failure Regimens randomized clinical trial, and data on uterine aspiration came from the published literature. The analysis was from the healthcare sector perspective with a 30-day time horizon. Costs were in 2018 US dollars. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjust life-years gained and the rate of complete gestational sac expulsion with no additional interventions. Our primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjust life-year gained. Sensitivity analysis was performed to identify the key uncertainties.

resultsMean per-person costs were higher for uterine aspiration than for medical management ($828 [95% confidence interval, $789-$868] vs $661 [95% confidence interval, $556-$766]; P=.004). Uterine aspiration more frequently led to complete gestational sac expulsion than medical management (97.3% vs 83.8%; P=.0001); however, estimated quality-adjust life-years were higher for medical management than for uterine aspiration (0.082 [95% confidence interval, 0.8148-0.08248] vs 0.079 [95% confidence interval, 0.0789-0.0791]; P<.0001). Medical management dominated uterine aspiration, with lower costs and higher confidence interval. The probability that medical management is cost-effective relative to uterine aspiration is 97.5% for all willingness-to-pay values of ≥$5600/quality-adjust life-year. Sensitivity analysis did not identify any thresholds that would substantially change outcomes.

conclusionAlthough office-based uterine aspiration more often results in treatment completion without further intervention, medical management with mifepristone pretreatment costs less and yields similar quality-adjust life-years, making it an attractive alternative. Our findings provided evidence that increasing access to mifepristone and eliminating unnecessary restrictions will improve early pregnancy care.

Indexed as

Abortion, SpontaneousMisoprostolCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleHumansMifepristonePregnancyMifepristoneMisoprostolhealth economicsmifepristone pretreatmentmiscarriagemisoprostolquality-adjusted life-yearsuterine aspiration

Identifiers

PMID35780811
PMCPMC10302401
OpenAlexW4283760223

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.