RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Early 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. OBJECTIVE: This 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 DESIGN: We 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. RESULTS: Mean 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. CONCLUSION: Although 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.
Assuntos
Aborto Espontâneo , Misoprostol , Gravidez , Feminino , Humanos , Aborto Espontâneo/tratamento farmacológico , Mifepristona/uso terapêutico , Análise Custo-Benefício , Misoprostol/uso terapêutico , Quimioterapia CombinadaRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Anorectal manometry (ARM) is typically performed in left lateral position, but many practitioners are more familiar with the lithotomy position. We aimed to evaluate agreement between ARM performed in left lateral and lithotomy positions and patient preference for testing position. METHODS: We performed a prospective comparison study of left lateral versus lithotomy position for women undergoing ARM for the evaluation of fecal incontinence. Women were randomly assigned to undergo testing in either left lateral position first followed by lithotomy position, or vice versa. Women then completed a survey assessing preference of position. We performed Bland-Altman analysis to measure the level of agreement between anorectal measurements obtained in the 2 positions. RESULTS: Twenty-one women were enrolled (mean age, 65 ± 2.2 years). We noted an acceptable level of agreement between anal pressure values obtained in left lateral versus lithotomy positions: anal resting pressure (mean difference, 0.9 mm Hg; 95% limits of agreement, 30.2 and -28.5) and anal squeeze pressure (mean difference, 1.8 mm Hg; 95% limits of agreement, 54.3 and -50.7). The level of agreement for sensory values was outside the predetermined clinical acceptability range. Most women (17/21 [81%]) reported a "good" or "very good" experience in both positions. CONCLUSIONS: Anorectal manometry testing in the 2 positions can be used interchangeably for anal resting and squeeze pressures, but not for anorectal sensation. This modification can be introduced into clinical practice to accommodate the preference of women and practitioners who favor lithotomy position.