Treatment of tubal pregnancy in The Netherlands: An economic comparison of systemic methotrexate administration and laparoscopic salpingostomy ☆ ☆☆ ★

Abstract Objective: This study was undertaken to compare from a societal perspective the costs of systemic methotrexate administration with those of laparoscopic salpingostomy for the treatment of patients with tubal pregnancy. Study Design: An economic evaluation was set up in tandem with a multicenter randomized clinical trial that compared systemic methotrexate administration and laparoscopic salpingostomy for the treatment of 100 hemodynamically stable patients with laparoscopically confirmed unruptured tubal pregnancy. Data on resources used for treatment and lost production time were prospectively collected and costs of both treatments were calculated by multiplying actual expenses for resource units at a single center and resource unit use measured in all centers. Costs were originally calculated in Dutch guilders and converted to US dollars at a rate of 1.67 guilders/$1. Results: Because clinical outcomes of the trial were equivalent for the 2 strategies a cost-minimization analysis was done. Mean total costs per patient were $5721 for systemic methotrexate administration and $4066 for laparoscopic salpingostomy, with a mean difference of $1655 (95% confidence interval, $906-$2414). Costs of systemic methotrexate administration were similar to those of salpingostomy for patients in whom the initial serum human chorionic gonadotropin concentration was 3000 IU/L. Conclusions: Although systemic methotrexate administration is safe and effective for the treatment of tubal pregnancy, it does not necessarily reduce costs. Systemic methotrexate therapy could reduce costs if administered to patients with low initial serum human chorionic gonadotropin concentrations without confirmatory laparoscopy. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:945-51.)