Synthetic osmotic dilators (Dilapan-S) or dinoprostone vaginal inserts (Propess) for inpatient induction of labour: A UK cost-consequence model

Abstract

ObjectiveTo estimate the costs of synthetic osmotic dilators (Dilapan-S) compared to dinoprostone vaginal inserts (Propess) for inpatient induction of labour (IOL). Study designA population-level, Markov model-based cost-consequence analysis was developed to compare the impact of using Dilapan-S versus Propess. The time horizon was modelled from admission to birth. The target population was women requiring inpatient IOL from 37 weeks with an unfavourable cervix in the UK. Mean population characteristics reflected those of the SOLVE (NCT03001661) trial. No patient data were included in this analysis. The care pathways and staff workload were modelled using data from the SOLVE trial and clinical experience. Cost and clinical inputs were sourced from the SOLVE trial and peer-reviewed literature. Costs were inflated to 2020 British pounds (GBP, £). Outcomes were reported as an average per woman for total costs and required staff time (minutes) from admission for IOL until birth. The model robustness was assessed using a probabilistic, multivariate sensitivity analysis of 2,000 simulations with results presented as the median (interquartile range, IQR). ResultsDilapan-S was cost neutral compared to Propess. Midwife and obstetrician times were decreased by 146 min (−11%) and 11 min (−54%), respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that in 78% of simulations, use of Dilapan-S reduced midwife time with a median of −160 min (IQR −277 to −24 min). Costs were reduced in 54% of simulations (median -£33, IQR -£319 to £282). ConclusionsThe model indicates that adoption of Dilapan-S is likely to be cost-neutral and reduce staff workload in comparison to Propess. Results require support from real-world data and further exploration of Dilapan-S is to be encouraged.