A structured review of the recent literature on the economic consequences of preterm birth

National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford (Old Road Campus), Old Road, Headington, Oxford, UK.
Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition (Impact Factor: 3.86). 05/2011; 96(3):F225-32. DOI: 10.1136/adc.2009.161117
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although survival rates for preterm infants have greatly improved over the last three to four decades, these infants remain at risk of developing a broad range of short-term and long-term complications. Despite the large body of work on the clinical sequelae of preterm birth, relatively little is known about its economic consequences. This paper represents a structured review of the recent scientific literature on the economic consequences of preterm birth for the health services, for other sectors of the economy, for families and carers and, more broadly, for society. A total of 2497 studies were identified by a pretested literature search strategy, 52 of which were included in the final review. Of these 52 studies, 19 reported the costs associated with the initial period of hospitalisation, 35 reported costs incurred following the initial hospital discharge (without providing costs for the entire remaining period of childhood), four of which also reported costs associated with the initial period of hospitalisation, while two reported costs incurred throughout childhood. The paper highlights the variable methodological quality of this body of literature. The results of the studies included in the review are summarised and critically appraised. The paper also highlights gaps in our current knowledge of the topic and identifies requirements for further research in this area.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The APOSTEL-II trial was a multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trial, assessing the effectiveness of maintenance tocolysis with nifedipine. The trial showed maintenance tocolysis not to have an effect on perinatal outcome. Objective of the current study is to evaluate the effect of a negative trial on the length of hospital admission of women with threatened preterm labor. We evaluated length of hospital admission of all patients admitted with threatened preterm labor with a gestational age <32 weeks in 8 perinatal centers that participated in the APOSTEL-II trial. We studied only the first admission with threatened preterm labor, readmissions were excluded. We distinguished between the period before, the period during and the period after the trial. In a subgroup analysis, we differentiated for the group of women who delivered and for the group of women who did not deliver during the initial admission. The mean length of hospital admission was 9.3 days before the start of the trial, 8.4 days during the recruitment period and 8.1 days after the trial was completed. The difference in mean length of hospital admission before and during the recruitment period was significantly different (p<001). The length of hospital admission of women with threatened preterm labor is found to be reduced during the recruitment period of the APOSTEL-II trial. This shows that the conduct of a randomized controlled trial itself has the potential to change daily practice. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
    European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 12/2014; 186C. DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.12.003 · 1.63 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the past, there has been a perception that ethical and practical problems limit the opportunities for research in neonates. This perception is no longer appropriate. It is now clear that research about the medicines used in neonates is an ethical requirement. It is possible to conduct high quality research in neonates if the research team adapt to the characteristics of this population. Good practice involves respecting the specific needs of newborn babies and their families by adopting relevant approaches to study design, recruitment, pharmacokinetic studies and safety assessment. Neonatal units have a unique culture that requires careful development in a research setting. Clinical investigators need to recognise the clinical and ethical imperative to conduct rigorous research. Industry needs to engage with neonatal networks early in the process of drug development, preferably before contacting regulatory agencies. Follow-up over 3 – 5 years is essential for the evaluation of medicines in neonates and explicit funding for this is required for the assessment of the benefit and risk of treatments given to sick newborn babies. The views of parents must be central to the development of studies and the research agenda. Ethical and practical problems are no longer barriers to research in neonates. The current challenges are to disseminate good practice and maximise capacity in order to meet the need for research among newborn babies.
    British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 07/2014; 79(3). DOI:10.1111/bcp.12467 · 3.69 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: When generating guidelines, quality of evidence is frequently reported in tabulated form capturing several domains, for example, study design, risk of bias and heterogeneity. Increasingly, this is done using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. As assimilating large amount of tabulated data across several comparisons and outcomes spread over many pages (sometimes hundreds) is not easy, there is a need to present evidence summaries in a more effective way. A graphic display plotting the several domains used in evidence grading on equiangular spokes starting from the same point, the data length of each spoke proportional to the magnitude of the quality, succinctly captures tabulated information. These plots allow easy identification of deficiencies, outliers and similarities in evidence quality for individual and multiple comparisons and outcomes, paving the way for their routine use alongside tabulated information.
    Evidence-based medicine 06/2011; 16(3):65-9. DOI:10.1136/ebm0005