Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tests for threatened preterm labor in singleton pregnancy in France

  • Thomas Desplanches
  • Catherine Lejeune
  • Jonathan Cottenet
  • Paul Sagot
  • Catherine Quantin
Open Access
Research

Abstract

Background

Previous studies have showed that the early diagnosis of threatened preterm labor decreases neonatal morbidity and mortality, avoids maternal morbidity induced by antepartum bed rest and unnecessary treatment, and reduces costs. Although there are many diagnostic tests, none is clearly recommended by international guidelines. The aim of our study was to compare seven diagnostic methods in terms of effectiveness and cost using a decision analysis model in singleton pregnancy presenting threatened preterm labor, between 24 and 34 weeks of gestation.

Methods

Seven diagnostic strategies based on individual or combined use of the following tests: cervical length, cervical fibronectin test, cervical interleukin test and protein in maternal serum, were compared using a decision analysis model. Effectiveness was expressed in terms of serious adverse neonatal events avoided (neonatal morbidity and mortality) at the hospital discharge. The economic analysis was performed from the health care system perspective. Deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model.

Results

At 24–34 weeks of gestation, the association of cervical length and qualitative fibronectin was the most efficient strategy dominating all alternatives, reducing the perinatal death or severe neonatal morbidity rate up to 15% and the costs up to 31% according to the gestational age. This result was confirmed by the deterministic sensitivity analyses. The probabilistic analysis showed that the association of cervical length and qualitative fibronectin dominated cervical length < 15 mm in more than 90% of the simulations. The comparison with the other tests revealed more uncertainty.

Conclusions

A test using cervical length and qualitative fetal fibronectin appears to be the best diagnostic strategy. Decisions regarding its generalization and funding in France in this population of women should take into account the high, lifetime costs induced by prematurity.

Keywords

Cost-effectiveness Diagnostic test Economic evaluation Preterm birth Threatened preterm labor 

Abbreviations

CL

cervical length

DRG

diagnoses relate groups

ENC

echelle nationale des coûts

fFN

fetal fibronectin

GA

gestational age

ICER

incremental cost-effectiveness ratio

IL-6

interleukin-6

NE

northeast

NW

northwest

PTD

preterm delivery

PMSI

programme de médicalisation des systèmes d’information

RANTES

plasma on activation normal T-expressed and secreted regulated

SE

southeast

SW

southwest

TPL

threatened preterm labor

Background

The main consequence of threatened preterm labor (TPL) is preterm birth, which is the leading cause of neonatal mortality and severe morbidity. Preterm birth is defined as birth before 37 weeks of gestation, but it is generally stratified in three groups according to the gestational age; 24–27 (extremely preterm), 28–31 (very preterm) and 32–34 (moderate preterm) weeks [1].

In developed countries, spontaneous preterm birth occurs in 6–13% of pregnancies [1]. TPL is considered as the cause of preterm birth in 45% of cases, the other causes being premature preterm rupture of the membranes in 25% and maternal or fetal infections in 30% of the cases [2]. TPL is also one of the main causes of hospitalization during pregnancy, and leads to substantial costs estimated at $820 million in the United States of America [3]. Treatment consists of prolonging pregnancy with tocolysis, reducing neonatal mortality and morbidities in cases of preterm delivery by injecting corticosteroids, and sometimes transfer to a specialized center [4]. Studies show that 75–95% of women with threatened preterm labor do not deliver within 7 days, and 40% will even deliver at term [5, 6]. Furthermore, 44% of these women have at least two subsequent admissions for preterm labor, thus leading to additional costs [6]. Therefore, it appears important to identify true TPL early in order to decrease neonatal morbidity and mortality, avoid maternal morbidity induced by antepartum bed rest [7] and unnecessary treatment, and to reduce costs.

According to the literature, diagnostic tests such as cervical length measurement, qualitative cervicovaginal fetal fibronectin (fFN), and cervicovaginal interleukin-6 (IL-6) have been proven to increase accuracy when predicting premature birth [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]. However, no diagnostic strategy is clearly recommended by international guidelines [15, 16, 17]. Cervical length measurement has proven to be a more efficient strategy than medical examination for predicting preterm birth in symptomatic women [14, 17], but currently neither cervical length measurement nor qualitative cervicovaginal fFN can be recommended, and further investigation is required [18].

These diagnostic methods have been assessed in several medico-economic analyses based on decision analysis models, whose results showed they could be accurate enough to be cost-effective [19, 20, 21, 22, 23]. However, newer diagnostic tests, such as quantitative fetal fibronectin or proteins in maternal serum, which have also shown significant results, were not included in previous cost-effectiveness studies [24, 25]. Subsequent antepartum hospitalizations were not taken into account either. Given the large number of strategies to consider and the lack of consensus regarding the optimal strategy to recommend, the objective of this study was to compare seven diagnostic methods in terms of cost and effectiveness using a decision analysis model in singleton pregnancy presenting threatened preterm labor.

Methods

Study population

A Medline literature research was performed. It was restricted to studies written in English or in French from 2004 onwards, and included “preterm labor, cervical length, fetal fibronectin, preterm birth” as key words. Most of the published studies considered (1) women with a singleton pregnancy, (2) hospitalized for TPL between 24 and 34 weeks gestational age with symptoms indicating threatened preterm delivery based on the presence of regular uterine contractions and intact membranes with possible cervical change but without advanced cervical dilation (< 3 cm), (3) with a preterm delivery (PTD) occurring within 7 days of the initial hospitalization, and (4) without severe maternal disease such as severe gestational arterial hypertension, pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, premature preterm rupture of the membranes, and placenta previa, or cases of termination of pregnancy for maternal and fetal medical reasons.

Only the studies using these inclusion criteria were taken into account in our study.

General description of the model

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a decision analysis model. Seven diagnostic tests among women presenting with TPL were compared until hospitalization discharge. The choice between the seven tests was represented by a decision node. All clinical events in each strategy were then associated with estimated conditional transition probabilities. At the end of each alternative strategy of the decision tree, two payoffs were assigned corresponding to the total cost of care and the effectiveness. The decision tree was built and analyzed using TreeAge Pro 2017 software (TreeAge Software, Inc., Williamstown, MA).

Description of strategies

Cervical length (CL) measured by transvaginal ultrasonography defined as positive if CL < 25 mm was considered as the reference strategy (Sref) because it appears to be the strategy the most widely used by French health care providers.

Other alternatives were:
S2:

a qualitative rapid fetal fibronectin (fFN) test, defined as positive if fFN ≥ 0.05 µg/ml;

S3:

a quantitative fetal fibronectin test, defined as positive if fFN ≥ 200 ng/ml;

S4:

a cervical interleukin-6 test (IL-6), defined as positive if IL-6 ≥ 210 pg/ml;

S5:

a combination test associating CL measured by transvaginal ultrasonography, plasma on activation normal T-expressed and secreted regulated (RANTES) and plasma interleukin-10, defined as positive if CL ≤ 18 mm, plasma RANTES ≥ 49 293 pg/ml and plasma interleukin-10 ≥ 48 pg/ml;

S6:

CL measured by transvaginal ultrasonography, defined as positive if CL < 15 mm;

S7:

a test associating CL and qualitative fetal fFN, defined as positive if CL < 15 mm or if CL is 16–30 mm and qualitative fetal fFN ≥ 0.05 µg/ml.

Description of the decision tree

For each compared strategy, in case of positive results corresponding to the probability of delivering within 7 days, women were hospitalized and treated. Treatment was defined as the administration of tocolytic agents and steroids, combined with the transfer of women to a perinatal center depending on the GA (Fig. 1). The possibility that a woman presented a positive result but did not deliver within the first 7 days was also modelled. In this case, a state-transition Markov model was used to simulate the probability of giving birth until 37 weeks gestation (Fig. 2). Four health states and one absorbing state were modelled: home monitoring, new hospitalisation, delivery with severe neonatal morbidity, delivery without severe neonatal morbidity and delivery with death of the new-born. At each new cycle of one week, the women could move from one state to another through predefined transition probabilities either until preterm delivery or until delivery at 37 weeks. A similar follow-up was modelled in case of negative test results.
Fig. 1

Decision analysis model. vpp positive predictive value. vpn negative predictive value

Fig. 2

Markov model

Model parameters

Two types of transition probabilities have to be distinguished: parameters which had to be estimated using data issued from the literature research, and those which were directly introduced into the model, based on national validated sources.

The parameters estimated from literature data concerned the probability of having a positive diagnostic test or not. It was estimated from a contingency table, based on an incidence of 9.7%, defined by the median of data issued from the literature and the sensitivity and specificity for each of the seven diagnostic tests (Table 1). It was therefore possible to estimate the probability of having a preterm delivery or not within 7 days in case of positive test (true and false positive situation respectively) and negative test (false and true negative situation) (Fig. 1).
Table 1

Values, ranges, distributions and references for parameters used in the decision tree

Variables

Value

Rangea

Distribution

References

Incidence of preterm birth (%)

0.097

0.05–0.15

[8, 10, 13, 24, 25]

Diagnostic performances

 CL < 25 mm sensitivity

0.78

0.68–0.87

beta

[14]

 CL < 25 mm specificity

0.71

0.67–0.74

beta

[14]

 CL < 15 mm sensitivity

0.6

0.53–0.67

beta

[14]

 CL < 15 mm specificity

0.9

0.89–0.92

beta

[14]

 Qualitative fFN sensitivity

0.75

0.66–0.83

beta

[8, 20]

 Qualitative fFN specificity

0.76

0.73–0.79

beta

[8, 20]

 Quantitative fFN sensitivity

0.59

0.36–0.95

beta

[24]

 Quantitative fFN specificity

0.94

0.91–0.97

beta

[24]

 Cervical IL-6 sensitivity

0.83

0.53–1

beta

[10]

 Cervical IL-6 specificity

0.94

0.89–0.99

beta

[10]

 Combination CL < 18 mm, plasma RANTES, plasma IL-10 sensitivity

0.74

0.63–0.85

beta

[25]

beta

 Combination CL < 18 mm, plasma RANTES, plasma IL-10 specificity

0.86

0.79–0.93

beta

[25]

beta

 CL < 15 mm or CL 16–30 mm and qualitative fFN sensitivity

0.89

0.83–0.95

beta

[13]

 CL < 15 mm or CL 16–30 mm and qualitative fFN specificity

0.7

0.67–0.73

beta

[13]

Probability of perinatal death

 If preterm birth [24–27] GA

0.392

0.35–0.44

beta

[29]

 If preterm birth [28–31] GA

0.078

0.05–0.10

beta

[29]

 If preterm birth [32–34] GA

0.033

0.009–0.057

beta

[29]

 If preterm birth [24–34] GA

0.109

0.09–0.13

[29]

Probability of severe neonatal morbidity

[29]

 If preterm birth [24–27] GA

0.303

0.25–0.36

beta

[29]

 If preterm birth [28–31] GA

0.085

0.059–0.11

beta

[29]

 If preterm birth [32–34] GA

0.016

0–0.034

beta

[29]

 If preterm birth [24–34] GA

0.07

0.054–0.086

[29]

Probability of subsequent hospitalization

 If preterm birth [24–27] GA

0.13

PMSI

 If preterm birth [28–31] GA

0.17

PMSI

 If preterm birth [32–34] GA

0.27

PMSI

Probability of home follow-up

 If preterm birth [24–27] GA

0.94

PMSI

 If preterm birth [28–31] GA

0.938

PMSI

 If preterm birth [32–34] GA

0.916

PMSI

GA gestational age, CL cervical length, fFN fetal fibronectin, IL interleukin, PMSI Programme de medicalization du système d’information

a Range used for univariate sensitivity analyses

Data directly based on national validated sources included:
  • The probability of serious neonatal adverse events issued from the results of the EPIPAGE-2, a national cohort [26]. These events were defined as perinatal death or severe neonatal morbidity (severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia, severe necrotizing enterocolitis, severe retinopathy of prematurity, severe cerebral abnormalities on cranial ultrasonography).

  • The probability of subsequent hospitalizations after discharge. It was issued from the data collected by a national medico-administrative database, the PMSI (Programme de médicalisation du système d’information). This database is used to determine the activity-based payment for hospitals in France. The reliability and validity of the PMSI data have already been assessed [27].

The parameters used in the model, the ranges over which they were tested and their sources are shown in Table 1.

Analysis

Effectiveness

The effectiveness endpoint was the number of serious adverse events concerning the new-born, including either perinatal death or severe neonatal morbidity. We considered a score of 1 for death or severe neonatal morbidity and 0 otherwise.

Costs

The economic analysis was performed from the French healthcare system perspective. Only direct medical costs were taken into account. Costs were expressed in Euros (€) for the year 2012. Costs were not updated given the stability of prices in France (average annual variation of the consumer price index less than 1% between 2012 and 2017) [28].

The mothers’ and the newborns’ hospitalization was identified using their associated Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG). Their costs were estimated using the National cost survey sample named ‘Echelle nationale des coûts’ (ENC) [29]. The ENC estimates production costs of hospitalisation from a sample of public and private care centers. They were categorized in medical cost (consumable, diagnostic test, drugs, human resources) and structure cost (laundry, restauration, global logistics, depression and maintenance). Home follow-up care costs were estimated from the reimbursement of the national insurance health system concerning midwife consultation. All economic data are presented in Table 2.
Table 2

Values, ranges, distributions and references for economic parameters used in the decision tree (costs 2012, €)

 

Value

Range

Distribution

References

Weekly home follow-up

42

NIHS

[24–27] GA

 Prenatal hospitalization for TPL

1445

532–2736

Gamma

NCSS

 Preterm labor

2877

1327–11,570

Log-normal

NCSS

 Preterm labor hospitalization

2890

1332–11,594

Log-normal

NCSS

 Perinatal death

1867

323–80,068

Log-normal

NCSS

 Neonatal hospitalization without morbidity

27,295

1380–78,887

Log-normal

NCSS

 Neonatal hospitalization with morbidity

58,775

2406–79,591

Gamma

NCSS

[28–31] GA

 Prenatal hospitalization for TPL

1762

532–5370

Gamma

NCSS

 Preterm labor

3606

1318–11,525

Log-normal

NCSS

 Preterm labor hospitalization

3639

1328–11,626

Log-normal

NCSS

 Perinatal death

1235

323–18,976

Log-normal

NCSS

 Neonatal hospitalization without morbidity

19,748

1380–79,394

Log-normal

NCSS

 Neonatal hospitalization with morbidity

40,419

2150–79,690

Gamma

NCSS

[32–34] GA

 Prenatal hospitalization for TPL

2113

532–11,625

Gamma

NCSS

 Preterm labor

4482

1334–11,625

Log-normal

NCSS

 Preterm labor hospitalization

4517

1343–11,821

Log-normal

NCSS

 Perinatal death

1606

323–57,387

Log-normal

NCSS

 Neonatal hospitalization without morbidity

10,907

1380–61,756

Log-normal

NCSS

 Neonatal hospitalization with morbidity

20,331

1380–36,321

Gamma

NCSS

GA gestational age, TPL threatened preterm labor, NIHS National Insurance Health System, NCSS National Cost Survey Sample

Cost-effectiveness analysis

All strategies were compared with each other. Strategies were ranked from the least to the most costly. Strategies that were more costly and less effective (i.e. presenting a higher number of serious adverse events) than the next alternative were excluded by simple dominance. Strategies presenting a higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) than that of the next most effective alternative were excluded by extended dominance. ICER was calculated according to the following formula:
$${\text{ICER}} = \left( {{\text{Mean Cost}}_{\text{test n}} - {\text{Mean Cost}}_{{{\text{test n}} - 1}} } \right)/\left( {{\text{Mean effectiveness}}_{\text{test n}} - {\text{Mean effectiveness}}_{{{\text{test n}} - 1}} } \right)$$

Four cost-effectiveness analyses were performed: one for each GA group (24–27, 28–31 and 32–34 weeks), and one for the whole period of 24–34 weeks GA, which was obtained by adjusting the cost and effectiveness results of each GA group by the proportion of mothers in each of these periods. As the time frame was less than one year, costs and effectiveness were not discounted.

Sensitivity analyses

Three deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. The first analysis concerned the incidence of preterm birth which was fixed at 5% and then at 15%.

The second analysis concerned the diagnostic performances of the tests. The maximum values of sensitivities and specificities were first simultaneously tested, and a similar analysis was then performed with their minimum values.

Probabilistic analyses

A Monte Carlo simulation was also performed. The Monte Carlo analysis draws a cost-effectiveness plane divided into four quadrants [30]: the northeast (NE) quadrant contained situations where incremental costs and effects were both positive (ΔE > 0 and ΔC > 0), indicating that the new test was dominated by the alternative test (because in our study, a high level of effectiveness corresponded to a high level of severe neonatal events for the newborn). The southwest (SW) quadrant contained the opposite situation where the new test dominated the alternative (ΔE < 0 and ΔC < 0). The northwest (NW) quadrant corresponded to the situation where incremental costs were positive and incremental effects negative (ΔE < 0 and ΔC > 0), indicating that a trade-off needed to be made and an ICER had to be calculated. Finally, in the southeast (SE) quadrant, we find a situation with negative incremental effects as well as cost savings (ΔE > 0 and ΔC < 0) [31]. The distribution of transition probabilities and costs were sampled in 5000 consecutive iterations (Table 1).

Results

Baseline cost-effectiveness analysis

Results showed that at 24–34 GA, cervical length < 15 mm, or a positive qualitative fetal fibronectin test when CL was between 16 and 30 mm (S7) was the least costly and the most effective strategy (because it is associated with the lowest number of neonatal serious adverse events) and dominated the reference strategy (CL < 25 mm) and all other alternatives (Table 3). The rate of perinatal death or severe neonatal morbidity was decreased in a range varying between 9 and 15% (from 2.33 to 4.2 serious neonatal adverse events avoided per 1000 new-borns) and cost saving of between 25 and 31% (from €1107 to €1481 per mother–child) depending on the strategies compared.
Table 3

Cost and effectiveness of seven diagnostic strategies for threatened preterm labor at 24–34 weeks gestational age

Strategies in order of decreasing cost effectiveness

Cost per mother–child, €

Neonatal serious adverse events

ICERa, €

S7: CL < 15 mm or CL [16–30 mm] and qualitative fFN

3237

0.0233

S3: Quantitative fFN

4344

0.0256

481,304 (dominated)

S2: Qualitative fFN

4385

0.0260

425,034 (dominated)

Sref: CL < 25 mm

4400

0.0262

401,034 (dominated)

S4: IL-6 cervical

4415

0.0264

380,000 (dominated)

S5: Combination CL < 18 mm, RANTES plasma, IL-10 plasma

4431

0.0266

361,818 (dominated)

S6: CL < 15 mm

4718

0.0275

352,619 (dominated)

CL cervical length, fFN fetal fibronectin, IL interleukin

a Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed in terms of cost per additional serious adverse event. For example, the ICER 481,304 € should be interpreted as following: S3 is associated to an added cost of 481,304 € per additional neonatal adverse event compared to S7

Similar results were found for each gestational age group (24–27; 28–31; 32–34). Results also showed that the earlier the prematurity, the higher the number of avoided serious adverse neonatal events when strategies were compared (Additional file 1: Supplement A).

Deterministic sensitivity analyses

Results issued from the deterministic analyses concerning the incidence of preterm birth confirmed the efficiency of the association of CL and qualitative fFN (S7) compared with the other strategies. Results issued from the analyses using the minimum and the maximum values of the diagnostic test performances also confirmed this result (Table 4).
Table 4

Deterministic sensitivity analyses

 

Cost per mother–child, €

Neonatal serious adverse events

ICERa, €

Minimum values of sensitivity and maximum values of specificity

S7: CL < 15 mm or CL [16–30 mm] and qualitative fFN

3040

0.0219

S2: Qualitative fFN

4359

0.0258

338,205

S5: CL < 18 mm, plasma RANTES and plasma IL-10

4382

0.0260

327,317

Sref: CL < 25 mm

4388

0.0261

320,952

S4: Cervical IL6

4465

0.0269

285,000

S3: Quantitative fFN

4492

0.0269

290,400

S6: CL < 15 mm

4592

0.0264

344,889

Maximum values of sensitivity and minimum values of specificity

S7: CL < 15 mm or CL [16–30 mm] and qualitative fFN

3300

0.0236

S2: Qualitative fFN

4381

0.0260

450,417

S5: CL < 18 mm, plasma RANTES and plasma IL-10

4414

0.0264

397,857

Sref: CL < 25 mm

4427

0.0265

388,621

S4: Cervical IL-6

4465

0.0269

353,030

S3: Quantitative fFN

4473

0.0270

345,000

S6: CL < 15 mm

4653

0.0268

422,813

Incidence of preterm birth of 5%

S7: CL < 15 mm or CL [16–30 mm] and qualitative fFN

1927

0.0119

S3: Quantitative fFN

3517

0.0168

324,490

Sref: CL < 25 mm

3560

0.0172

308,113

S4: Cervical IL-6

3560

0.0172

308,113

S2: Qualitative fFN

3587

0.0175

296,429

S5: CL < 18 mm, plasma RANTES and plasma IL-10

3604

0.0177

289,138

S6: CL < 15 mm

3719

0.0143

746,667

Incidence of preterm birth of 15%

S7: CL < 15 mm or CL [16–30 mm] and qualitative fFN

4121

0.0337

Sref: CL < 25 mm

5414

0.037

391,818

S3: Quantitative fFN

5437

0.0373

365,556

S5: CL < 18 mm, plasma RANTES and plasma IL-10

5443

0.0374

357,297

S2: Qualitative fFN

5452

0.0374

359,730

S4: Cervical IL-6

5514

0.0381

316,591

S6: CL < 15 mm

5636

0.0295

− 360,714

CL cervical length, fFN fetal fibronectin, IL interleukin

a Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed in terms of cost per additional serious adverse event compared to S7. A positive ICERs correspond to an added cost per additional neonatal adverse event compared to S7. All strategies with a positive ICER are dominated by S7. The negative ICER corresponds to added costs to avoid one additional serious adverse event compared to S7

Probabilistic analysis

Table 5 indicates the proportion of points for each GA, representing pairs of incremental costs and effectiveness in each of these four quadrants. These points were issued from the comparison between the most efficient strategy, identified with the baseline cost-effectiveness analysis of this work, and the six other diagnostic tests.
Table 5

Probabilistic analysis (5000 iterations): proportions (%) of pairs of incremental cost and incremental severe adverse neonatal events associated with CL < 15 mm or CL [16–30 mm] and fFN qualitative compared to each of the six other strategies

 

∆E < 0 and ∆C < 0a

∆E < 0 and ∆C > 0b

∆E > 0 and ∆C < 0c

∆E > 0 and ∆C > 0d

Strategies [24–27] GA

 S6: CL < 15 mm

90

1

0

9

 Sref: CL < 25 mm

24

47

0

29

 S2: Qualitative fFN

20

47

0

33

 S3: Quantitative fFN

26

23

0

51

 S4: Cervical IL-6

41

18

0

41

 S5: CL < 18 mm, plasma RANTES and plasma IL-10

27

24

0

49

Strategies [28–31] GA

 S6: CL < 15 mm

92

0

3

5

 Sref: CL < 25 mm

28

45

0

27

 S2: Qualitative fFN

24

45

0

31

 S3: Quantitative fFN

28

20

0

52

 S4: Cervical IL-6

44

17

0

39

 S5: CL < 18 mm, plasma RANTES and plasma IL-10

28

23

0

49

Strategies [32–34] GA

 S6: CL < 15 mm

96

0

3

1

 Sref: CL < 25 mm

59

25

3

13

 S2: Qualitative fFN

54

26

3

17

 S3: Quantitative fFN

43

12

5

41

 S4: Cervical IL-6

55

10

3

31

 S5: CL < 18 mm, plasma RANTES and plasma IL-10

45

14

5

36

GA gestational age, CL cervical length, fFN fetal fibronectin, IL interleukin

a The southwest quadrant (SW) represented the proportion where CL < 15 mm or CL [16–30 mm] and fFN qualitative dominated the alternative strategies

b The northwest quadrant (NW) represented the proportion where CL < 15 mm or CL [16–30 mm] and fFN qualitative was more effective but more costly

c The southeast quadrant (SE) represented the proportion where CL < 15 mm or CL [16–30 mm] and fFN qualitative was less effective and less costly

d The northeast quadrant (NE) represented the proportion where CL < 15 mm or CL [16–30 mm] and fFN qualitative was less effective and more costly

The results showed that when the association of CL and qualitative fFN was compared with CL < 15 mm (S6), most of the pairs of incremental costs and effectiveness were contained in the SW quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane (ΔE < 0 and ΔC < 0, i.e. showing a higher effectiveness and cost-savings associated with CL and qualitative fFN): at 24–27 GA, the probability that the association of CL and qualitative fFN dominates CL < 15 mm was estimated to be 90%; at 28–31 and 32–34 GA, the analysis depicted a probability of 92 and 96% respectively.

More uncertainty was observed concerning the comparison between CL and qualitative fFN and the five other strategies (Sref, S2, S3, S4 and S5): at 24–27 GA, the proportion of pairs of incremental results was split between the SW quadrant and the NW quadrant range between 49 and 71% according to the strategies. At 28–31, this proportion varied between 48 and 73%. At 32–34, the range was 55–84%. Moreover, the association of CL and qualitative fFN (S7) was dominated (NE quadrant) by S3, S4, S5 in almost half of the cases and whatever the GA (Table 5 and Additional file 2: Supplement B).

Discussion

Summary of key findings

The results showed that among seven diagnostic strategies in singleton pregnancy presenting TPL between the GA of 24 and 34 weeks, CL less than 15 mm or a positive qualitative fFN when CL was between 16 and 30 mm (S7), was the most efficient diagnostic strategy and led to a reduction in neonatal morbidity and mortality and significant cost savings compared to all other alternative strategies (with a cost savings of 1481€ per mother–child and 4.2 serious neonatal adverse events avoided per 1000 new-borns). The deterministic and probabilistic analyses confirmed the domination of the association of CL and qualitative fFN over the other tests and especially over CL < 15 mm which was the least effective and the most costly strategy. This can be explained by the fact that this strategy had a poor sensitivity compared to the combination of strategies.

Comparison with other studies

To the best of our knowledge, relatively few cost-effectiveness analyses on this topic have been performed. Most of the studies did not include the combination of CL and qualitative fFN [20, 21, 22, 23], except the study conducted by van Baaren et al. in the Netherlands who found that testing fFN in women with CL between 10 and 30 mm was the most efficient strategy [19]. Both our decision analysis models provided arguments in favor of this strategy for the international medical community [15].

The previous observational studies showed that CL combined with fFN could improve the identification of women with a low risk of delivering spontaneously within 7 days [8, 32, 33, 34] and thus reduce costs and the number of hospitalizations [21]. The clinical trial conducted by Ness et al. also showed that CL combined with fFN was also associated with reduced evaluation time in triage for women with CL ≥ 30 mm [36]. In consequence, this strategy (CL less than 15 mm or a positive qualitative fFN when CL was between 16 and 30 mm (S7)) could be easily applied in current obstetrics practice whatever the type of center. However, it requires the application of the standardized protocol described by Schmitz et al. [35], as clinicians must sample qualitative fFN and then measure CL by transvaginal ultrasound before making a decision.

Strengths and limitations

The main strength of our study is that it was based on reliable data from three official and validated sources: the Epipage 2-cohort which provided neonatal morbidity and mortality data, PMSI which is a national medico-administrative database, and the National cost sample survey which provided costs issued from public and private care centers [29]. These data gave us the opportunity to provide detailed results according to GA. The stratified cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the strategy combining CL with qualitative fFN had a positive economic and medical impact according to GA groups: at 24–27 weeks GA, the number of serious adverse neonatal events was much higher compared to 28–31 and 32–34 GA with an overall cost not exceeding €1500 per mother child. This overall cost should be traded-off with the cost of complications associated with high prematurity [36, 37] and the cost of follow-up for these children over a longer period of time. The national sources of data also provided enough robust parameters to be able to implement a Markov model in our decision tree to take into account the complexity of mother–child management and to avoid underestimating the costs associated with subsequent hospitalization after discharge. Another strength was the selection for which, contrary to the study conducted by van Baaren, only the studies including the same criteria of inclusion population were included in our analyses, therefore limiting the selection bias.

Our analysis does present some limits. Firstly, our population did not include all preterm births because women presenting either a disease associated with a high risk of preterm birth or multiple pregnancy were excluded from our analyses because these medical situations do not require the use of diagnostic tests for TPL. Moreover, the data on diagnostic performance used for our study was all derived from observational studies, which can be prone to bias. Then the choice of the reference strategy in our baseline cost-effectiveness analysis. Currently, no diagnostic strategy is clearly recommended by international guidelines, and our choice to have taken cervical length as the reference strategy may be controversial. However, this choice had no effect on our results because all the other strategies were dominated.

Another limit concerns the strategies modelled: even if we modelled the use of new diagnostic tests such as quantitative fetal fibronectin or proteins in maternal serum, the combination of quantitative fFN and CL was not included in the model due to a lack of data.

For the economic analysis, only direct medical costs in public hospitals were taken into account, which raises the question of the transferability of the results to other countries where the organization and the financing of care is different. We also made the choice not to perform a cost-utility analysis because the main goal of our work was to assess the clinical consequences associated with threatened preterm labor. Prematurity is associated with long-term neuro-motor, sensory and cognitive disabilities. Given the economic consequences linked to these impairments, an analysis using Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) would have been relevant. Unfortunately, the medical and economic data required for this type of analysis were not available and would have required conducting further studies.

Conclusion

The strategy that combines CL with qualitative fFN, defined as positive if either CL < 15 mm or if CL is 16–30 mm and qualitative fFN is positive, appeared to be the most efficient strategy. Our findings could lead to a significant reduction of medical costs. Furthermore, this decision analysis provides arguments for establishing new guidelines, and informing the daily practice of clinicians in regional perinatal networks. Indeed, our suggested strategy is based on current obstetric practices, and represents no additional costs compared to the most used diagnostic test at the moment in France. This test can be implemented whatever the level of maternity center, which would make it easier to move women at high risk of delivery towards a center equipped to optimize the health of premature newborns.

Notes

Authors’ contributions

The following authors contributed to the authorship of this work and have approved the version being submitted: TD, CL, CQ and PS. TD and JC performed the literature search and data extraction, TD and CL designed the decision tree, TD, CL, CQ, PS analyzed the data, and TD wrote the first draft of the paper. All authors have critically revised the first draft. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank PY Ancel, F. Goffinet for providing the additional data from the EPIPAGE 2 study and S. Rankin for editing the final draft.

Competing interests

The authors report no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

All data are detailed in the methods or can be found in the referenced literature.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Funding

No funding.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary material

12962_2018_106_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Additional file 1: Supplement A. Costs and effectiveness outcomes of seven diagnostic strategies for threatened preterm labor according to the gestational age.
12962_2018_106_MOESM2_ESM.docx (459 kb)
Additional file 2: Supplement B. Scatter plots showing proportions (%) of pairs of incremental cost and incremental severe adverse neonatal events associated with CL < 15 mm or CL [16–30 mm] and fFN qualitative compared to strategy 3 and 6 according to GA.

References

  1. 1.
    Blencowe H, Cousens S, Oestergaard MZ, Chou D, Moller AB, Narwal R, et al. National, regional, and worldwide estimates of preterm birth rates in the year 2010 with time trends since 1990 for selected countries: a systematic analysis and implications. Lancet. 2012;379:2162–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goldenberg RL, Culhane JF, Iams JD, Romero R. Epidemiology and causes of preterm birth. Lancet. 2008;371:75–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nicholson WK, Frick KD, Powe NR. Economic burden of hospitalizations for preterm labor in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96:95–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sagot P, Roze C, Rigal E, Dantal F, De Morel P, Samake M, et al. Birth before 33 weeks gestational age. The significance of in utero-to-birth transfer in the Department of Perinatology. Rev Fr Gynecol Obstet. 1990;85:293–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sanchez-Ramos L, Delke I, Zamora J, Kaunitz AM. Fetal fibronectin as a short-term predictor of preterm birth in symptomatic patients: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:631–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McPheeters ML, Miller WC, Hartmann KE, Savitz DA, Kaufman JS, Garrett JM, et al. The epidemiology of threatened preterm labor: a prospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1325–9 (discussion 1329–1330).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sosa CG, Althabe F, Belizan JM, Bergel E. Bed rest in singleton pregnancies for preventing preterm birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;3:CD003581.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    DeFranco EA, Lewis DF, Odibo AO. Improving the screening accuracy for preterm labor: is the combination of fetal fibronectin and cervical length in symptomatic patients a useful predictor of preterm birth? A systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208(233):e231–6.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boots AB, Sanchez-Ramos L, Bowers DM, Kaunitz AM, Zamora J, Schlattmann P. The short-term prediction of preterm birth: a systematic review and diagnostic metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:54.e1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brik M, Antonio P, Perales-Puchalt A, Diago V, Perales A. Cervical interleukin-6 as a predictive test for preterm delivery in symptomatic women: preliminary results. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;155:14–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldenberg RL, Iams JD, Das A, Mercer BM, Meis PJ, Moawad AH, et al. The Preterm prediction study: sequential cervical length and fetal fibronectin testing for the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182:636–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Meis PJ, Mercer BM, Moawad A, Das A, et al. The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal Fetal Medicine Unit Network. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:567–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schmitz T, Kayem G, Maillard F, Lebret MT, Cabrol D, Goffinet F. Selective use of sonographic cervical length measurement for predicting imminent preterm delivery in women with preterm labor and intact membranes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31:421–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sotiriadis A, Papatheodorou S, Kavvadias A, Makrydimas G. Transvaginal cervical length measurement for prediction of preterm birth in women with threatened preterm labor: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35:54–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guidelines RCOG: Tocolysis for Women in Preterm Labour. Green–top Guideline February 2011, No. 1b.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    American College of Obstetrcian and Gynecologists. Committee on Practice B-O: ACOG practice bulletin no. 127: Management of preterm labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119:1308–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    College National Gynécologie Obstétrique Français. La menace d’accouchement prématuré à membranes intactes. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2002;31:5S7–2S1128.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sentilhes L, Senat MV, Ancel PY, Azria E, Benoist G, Blanc J, et al. Prevention of spontaneous preterm birth (excluding preterm premature rupture of membranes): guidelines for clinical practice—text of the guidelines (short text). J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2016;45:1446–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Baaren GJ, Vis JY, Grobman WA, Bossuyt PM, Opmeer BC, Mol BW. Cost-effectiveness analysis of cervical length measurement and fibronectin testing in women with threatened preterm labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(436):e431–8.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Honest H, Forbes CA, Duree KH, Norman G, Duffy SB, Tsourapas A, et al. Screening to prevent spontaneous preterm birth: systematic reviews of accuracy and effectiveness literature with economic modelling. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13:1–627.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rose CH, McWeeney DT, Brost BC, Davies NP, Watson WJ. Cost-effective standardization of preterm labor evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(250):e251–5.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Deshpande SN, van Asselt AD, Tomini F, Armstrong N, Allen A, Noake C, et al. Rapid fetal fibronectin testing to predict preterm birth in women with symptoms of premature labour: a systematic review and cost analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17:1–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mozurkewich EL, Naglie G, Krahn MD, Hayashi RH. Predicting preterm birth: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182:1589–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Abbott DS, Radford SK, Seed PT, Tribe RM, Shennan AH. Evaluation of a quantitative fetal fibronectin test for spontaneous preterm birth in symptomatic women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208(122):e121–6.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tsiartas P, Holst RM, Wennerholm UB, Hagberg H, Hougaard DM, Skogstrand K, et al. Prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery in women with threatened preterm labour: a prospective cohort study of multiple proteins in maternal serum. BJOG. 2012;119:866–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ancel PY, Goffinet F, Group E-W, Kuhn P, Langer B, Matis J, et al. Survival and morbidity of preterm children born at 22 through 34 weeks’ gestation in France in 2011: results of the EPIPAGE-2 cohort study. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169:230–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Quantin C, Benzenine E, Ferdynus C, Sediki M, Auverlot B, Abrahamowicz M, et al. Advantages and limitations of using national administrative data on obstetric blood transfusions to estimate the frequency of obstetric hemorrhages. J Public Health (Oxf). 2013;35:147–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques. https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2122401. Accessed 01 june 2017.
  29. 29.
    Agence Technique de l’Information sur l’Hospitalisation (ATIH). http://www.atih.sante.fr/enc-mco-donnees-2012. Accessed 01 june 2016.
  30. 30.
    Black WC. The CE plane: a graphic representation of cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Making. 1990;10:212–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Al MJ. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves revisited. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31:93–100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Soilly AL, Lejeune C, Quantin C, Bejean S, Gouyon JB. Economic analysis of the costs associated with prematurity from a literature review. Public Health. 2014;128:43–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Van Baaren GJ, Peelen MJ, Schuit E, van der Post JA, Mol BW, Kok M, et al. Preterm birth in singleton and multiple pregnancies: evaluation of costs and perinatal outcomes. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;186:34–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Van Baaren GJ, Vis JY, Wilms FF, Oudijk MA, Kwee A, Porath MM, et al. Predictive value of cervical length measurement and fibronectin testing in threatened preterm labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:1185–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Deplagne C, Maurice-Tison S, Coatleven F, Vandenbossche F, Horovitz J. Sequential use of cervical length measurement before fetal fibronectin detection to predict spontaneous preterm delivery in women with preterm labor. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2010;39:575–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ness A, Visintine J, Ricci E, Berghella V. Does knowledge of cervical length and fetal fibronectin affect management of women with threatened preterm labor? A randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:426.e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schmitz T, Maillard F, Bessard-Bacquaert S, Kayem G, Fulla Y, Cabrol D, et al. Selective use of fetal fibronectin detection after cervical length measurement to predict spontaneous preterm delivery in women with preterm labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:138–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Service de Gynécologie-Obstétrique, Médecine Fœtale et Stérilité ConjugaleCHU de DijonDijonFrance
  2. 2.EPICAD LNC-UMR1231Burgundy & Franche Comte UniversityDijonFrance
  3. 3.Clinical Epidemiology UnitInserm, CIC 1432DijonFrance
  4. 4.Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Investigation CenterDijon University HospitalDijonFrance
  5. 5.Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (DIM)University HospitalDijonFrance
  6. 6.Bourgogne Franche-Comté UniversityDijonFrance
  7. 7.Biostatistics, Biomathematics, Pharmacoepidemiology and Infectious Diseases (B2PHI)INSERM, UVSQ, Institut Pasteur, Université Paris-SaclayParisFrance

Personalised recommendations