Show simple item record

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

dc.contributor.authorEddama, O.
dc.contributor.authorPetrou, S.
dc.contributor.authorRegier, D.
dc.contributor.authorNorrie, J.
dc.contributor.authorMacLennan, G.
dc.contributor.authorMackenzie, F.
dc.contributor.authorNorman, J. E.
dc.date.accessioned2010-11-08T16:37:38Z
dc.date.available2010-11-08T16:37:38Z
dc.date.issued2010-04
dc.identifier.issn0266-4623en
dc.identifier.urihttp://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7917155en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1842/4206
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: Preterm birth contributes to a range of healthcare problems amongst infants surmounting to sizeable healthcare costs. Twin pregnancies are at particular risk of preterm birth. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of vaginal progesterone gel for the prevention of preterm birth in twin pregnancies. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomized placebo controlled trial (the STOPPIT trial) of vaginal progesterone gel for the prevention of preterm birth in twin pregnancies. Five hundred women were recruited from nine maternity hospitals in the United Kingdom. The outcomes of the economic evaluation were presented in terms of net benefit statistics, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, generated using the nonparametric bootstrap method, and the expected value of perfect information. RESULTS: Mean health service costs between the period of randomization and discharge for mother and infant were 28,031 pound sterling in the progesterone group and 25,972 pound sterling in the placebo group, generating a mean nonsignificant cost difference of 2,059 pound sterling (bootstrap mean cost difference 2,334 pound sterling; 95 percent confidence interval: -5,023 pound sterling, 9,142 pound sterling; p = .33). The probability of progesterone being cost-effective was 20 percent at a willingness to pay threshold of 30,000 pound sterling per preterm birth prevented. There is little economic justification for conducting further research into the use of vaginal progesterone gel in twin pregnancies for the prevention of preterm birth. CONCLUSIONS: Further studies of preventive interventions for preterm birth more generally are required given the scale of the clinical and economic burden of this condition. These studies should be sufficiently powered for economic endpoints and extend beyond hospital discharge.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherCambridge University Pressen
dc.subjectValue of informationen
dc.subjectObstetricsen
dc.subjectEconomic evaluationen
dc.subjectCost-effectiveness analysisen
dc.titleStudy of progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth in twins (STOPPIT): findings from a trial-based cost-effectiveness analysisen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/S0266462310000930en
rps.issue2en
rps.volume26en
rps.titleInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Careen
dc.extent.pageNumbers141-148en
dc.date.updated2010-11-08T16:37:39Z
dc.identifier.eIssn1471-6348en


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record