OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of mifepristone and misoprostol (MifeMiso) compared with misoprostol only for the medical management of a missed miscarriage. DESIGN: Within-trial economic evaluation and model-based analysis to set the findings in the context of the wider economic evidence for a range of comparators. Incremental costs and outcomes were calculated using non-parametric bootstrapping and reported using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Analyses were performed from the NHS perspective. SETTING: 28 UK NHS early pregnancy units. PARTICIPANTS: 711 women aged 16-39 years with ultrasound evidence of a missed miscarriage. INTERVENTIONS: Mifepristone and misoprostol or matched placebo and misoprostol tablets. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per additional successfully managed miscarriage and QALYs. RESULTS: For the within-trial analysis, MifeMiso intervention resulted in an absolute effect difference of 6.6% (95% CI: 0.7% to 12.5%) per successfully managed miscarriage and QALYs difference of 0.04% (95% CI: -0.01% to 0.1%). The average cost per successfully managed miscarriage was lower in the MifeMiso arm than in the placebo and misoprostol arm, with a cost-saving of £182 (95% CI: £26 to £338). Hence, MifeMiso intervention dominated the use of misoprostol alone. The model-based analysis showed that MifeMiso intervention is dominant compared to expectant management and the current medical management strategy. However, the model-based evidence suggests that the intervention is a less effective but less costly strategy than surgical management. CONCLUSIONS: The within-trial analysis found that based on cost-effectiveness grounds, MifeMiso intervention is likely to be recommended by decision-makers for the medical management of women presenting with a missed miscarriage.
Economic evaluation, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, management, miscarriage, model