IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v6y2022i5d10.1007_s41669-022-00355-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Utility Analysis of Planned Early Delivery or Expectant Management for Late Preterm Pre-eclampsia (PHOENIX)

Author

Listed:
  • Rachael Hunter

    (University College London
    Royal Free Medical School)

  • Alice Beardmore-Gray

    (King’s College London)

  • Melanie Greenland

    (University of Oxford)

  • Louise Linsell

    (University of Oxford)

  • Edmund Juszczak

    (University of Oxford
    University of Nottingham)

  • Pollyanna Hardy

    (University of Oxford)

  • Anna Placzek

    (University of Oxford)

  • Andrew Shennan

    (King’s College London)

  • Neil Marlow

    (University College London)

  • Lucy C. Chappell

    (King’s College London)

Abstract

Aim There is currently limited evidence on the costs associated with late preterm pre-eclampsia beyond antenatal care and post-natal discharge from hospital. The aim of this analysis is to evaluate the 24-month cost-utility of planned delivery for women with late preterm pre-eclampsia at 34+0–36+6 weeks’ gestation compared to expectant management from an English National Health Service perspective using participant-level data from the PHOENIX trial. Methods Women between 34+0 and 36+6 weeks’ gestation in 46 maternity units in England and Wales were individually randomised to planned delivery or expectant management. Resource use was collected from hospital records between randomisation and primary hospital discharge following birth. Women were followed up at 6 months and 24 months following birth and self-reported resource use for themselves and their infant(s) covering the previous 6 months. Women completed the EQ-5D 5L at randomisation and follow-up. Results A total of 450 women were randomised to planned delivery, 451 to expectant management: 187 and 170 women, respectively, had complete data at 24 months. Planned delivery resulted in a significantly lower mean cost per woman and infant(s) over 24 months (− £2711, 95% confidence interval (CI) − 4840 to − 637), with a mean incremental difference in QALYs of 0.019 (95% CI − 0.039 to 0.063). Short-term and 24-month infant costs were not significantly different between the intervention arms. There is a 99% probability that planned delivery is cost-effective at all thresholds below £37,000 per QALY gained. Conclusion There is a high probability that planned delivery is cost-effective compared to expectant management. These results need to be considered alongside clinical outcomes and in the wider context of maternity care. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN01879376. Registered 25 November 2013.

Suggested Citation

  • Rachael Hunter & Alice Beardmore-Gray & Melanie Greenland & Louise Linsell & Edmund Juszczak & Pollyanna Hardy & Anna Placzek & Andrew Shennan & Neil Marlow & Lucy C. Chappell, 2022. "Cost-Utility Analysis of Planned Early Delivery or Expectant Management for Late Preterm Pre-eclampsia (PHOENIX)," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 6(5), pages 723-733, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:6:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s41669-022-00355-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-022-00355-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-022-00355-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-022-00355-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:6:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s41669-022-00355-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.