The aim of this study was to compare direct and indirect costs of single-dose methotrexate and laparoscopy in the treatment of unruptured ectopic pregnancy. We conducted a prospective study between 1 January 1995 and 31 May 1997 and recorded costs accrued from outpatient and inpatient treatment with methotrexate (group I) and laparoscopy (group II). We used the French National Social Security nomenclature as reference for the different costs. Indirect costs were estimated from national demographic data. 39 patients were included in group I and 38 in group II. Single-dose methotrexate was the most economic management of unruptured tubal pregnancy ($US1436 per case vs $US3170 per case for laparoscopy) since it reduced the total cost by approximately 50%. This was due to a dramatic reduction in charges related to hospitalisation and the operating room. Indirect costs were also reduced, mainly as a result of a shorter recovery time ($US237 vs $US475). However, there was no further evidence of any cost effectiveness of methotrexate therapy when hospitalisation was required.
In conclusion, single-dose methotrexate appeared to be the most economic approach for the treatment of unruptured ectopic pregnancy. Selection of cases is mandatory to guarantee a cost savings for the treatment of unruptured ectopic pregnancy.
Methotrexate Adis International Limited Indirect Cost Ectopic Pregnancy Drug Invest
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access
Feichtinger W, Kemeter P. Conservative treatment of ectopic pregnancy by transvaginal aspiration under sonographic control and methotrate injection. Lancet 1987; I: 381–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creinin M, Washington A. Cost of ectopic pregnancy management: surgery versus methotrexate. Fertil Steril 1993; 60: 963–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
Yao M, Tulandi T, Kaplow M, et al. A comparison of methotrexate versus laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of ectopic pregnancy: a cost analysis. Hum Reprod 1996; 11: 2762–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yao M, Tulandi T. Current status of surgical and non surgical management of ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril 1997; 67: 421–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hidlebaugh D, O'Mara P. Clinical and financial analysis of ectopic pregnancy management at large health plan. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1997; 4: 207–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander JM, Rouse DJ, Varner E, et al. Treatment of the small unruptured ectopic pregnancy: a cost analysis of methotrexate versus laparoscopy. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 88: 123–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lécuru F, Taurelle R, Viens-Bitker C, et al. Cost of unruptured ectopic pregnancy treatment: comparison of laparoscopy and methotrexate injection. Gynaecol Endoscopy 1996; 5: 25–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merz E, Bahlman F, Weber G, et al. Unruptured tubal pregnancy: local low dose therapy with methotrexate under transvaginal ultrasonographic guidance. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1996; 41: 76–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stika CS, Anderson L, Frederiksen MC. Single dose methotrexate for the treatment of ectopic pregnancy: Northwestern Memorial Hospital three-year experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174: 1840–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glock JL, Johnson JV, Brumsted JR. Efficacy and safety of single dose systemic methotrexate in the treatment of ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril 1994; 62: 716–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
Lécuru F, Querleu D, Buchet-Bouverne B, et al. The effect of tubal injection of methotrexate on fertility in the rabbit. Fertil Steril 1992; 57: 422–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
Fernandez H, Lelaidier C, Baton C, et al. Return of reproductive performance after expectant management and local treatment for ectopic pregnancy. Hum Reprod 1991; 6(10): 1474–7PubMedGoogle Scholar