Comparison of Levonorgestrel-releasing Intrauterine System (LNG-IUS) against Laparoscopic Assisted Supracervical Hysterectomy (LASH) for menorrhagia treatment: An economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: This economic evaluation and literature review was conducted with the primary aim to compare the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic assisted supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) with NICE's gold-standard treatment of Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) for menorrhagia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted from an NHS perspective, using data from two European studies to compare the treatments. Individual costs and benefits were assessed within one year of having the intervention. An Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was calculated, followed by sensitivity analysis. Expected Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYS) and costs to the NHS were calculated alongside health net benefits (HNB) and monetary net benefits (MNB). RESULTS: A QALY gain of 0.069 was seen in use of LNG-IUS compared to LASH. This yielded a MNB between -£44.99 and -£734.99, alongside a HNB between -0.0705 QALYs and -0.106 QALYS. Using a £20,000-£30,000/QALY limit outlined by NICE,this showed the LNG-IUS to be more cost-effective than LASH, with LASH exceeding the upper bound of the £30,000/QALY limit. Sensitivity analysis lowered the ICER below the given threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The ICER demonstrates it would not be cost-effective to replace the current gold-standard LNG-IUS with LASH, when treating menorrhagia in the UK. The ICER's proximity to the threshold and its high sensitivity alludes to the necessity for further research to generate a more reliable cost-effectiveness estimate. However, LASH could be considered as a first line treatment option in women with no desire to have children.

The levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the costs and non-inferiority of a strategy starting with the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) compared with endometrial ablation (EA) in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective alongside a multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial. SETTING: General practices and gynaecology departments in the Netherlands. POPULATION: In all, 270 women with HMB, aged ≥34 years old, without intracavitary pathology or wish for a future child. METHODS: Randomisation to a strategy starting with the LNG-IUS (n = 132) or EA (n = 138). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Direct medical costs and (in)direct non-medical costs were calculated. The primary outcome was menstrual blood loss after 24 months, measured with the mean Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart (PBAC)-score (non-inferiority margin 25 points). A secondary outcome was successful blood loss reduction (PBAC-score ≤75 points). RESULTS: Total costs per patient were €2,285 in the LNG-IUS strategy and €3,465 in the EA strategy (difference: €1,180). At 24 months, mean PBAC-scores were 64.8 in the LNG-IUS group (n = 115) and 14.2 in the EA group (n = 132); difference 50.5 points (95% CI 4.3-96.7). In the LNG-IUS group, 87% of women had a PBAC-score ≤75 points versus 94% in the EA group (relative risk [RR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.85-1.01). The ICER was €23 (95% CI €5-111) per PBAC-point. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy starting with the LNG-IUS was cheaper than starting with EA, but non-inferiority could not be demonstrated. The LNG-IUS is reversible and less invasive and can be a cost-effective treatment option, depending on the success rate women are willing to accept. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding starting with LNG-IUS is cheaper but slightly less effective than endometrial ablation.

Treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization and costs in heavy menstrual bleeding: a Japanese claims database analysis.

AIMS: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a highly prevalent condition, characterized by excessive menstrual blood loss and cramping, that interferes with activities of daily life. The aim of this study was to investigate treatment patterns in HMB in Japan, and to assess healthcare resource utilization and costs among women newly-diagnosed with the condition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzed health insurance data available in the Japan Medical Data Center (JMDC) database on women aged 18-49 years who were newly-diagnosed with primary or secondary HMB. Treatment patterns were analyzed, and healthcare utilization and costs were evaluated and compared to matched controls. RESULTS: The study included a total of 635 patients, 210 with primary HMB and 425 with secondary HMB. In the primary HMB cohort, 60.0% of patients received one or more pharmacological or surgical treatments, compared with 76.2% in the secondary HMB cohort. The most commonly prescribed medications in all patients were hemostatic agents (28.7%), traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) (12.1%), and low-dose estrogen progestins (LEPs) (10.1%). After adjustment for patient baseline characteristics, healthcare costs were 1.93-times higher in primary HMB cases (p < .0001) and 4.44-times higher in secondary HMB cases (p < .0001) vs healthy controls. Outpatient care was the main cost driver. LIMITATIONS: The main limitations of this study are related to its retrospective nature, and the fact that only reimbursed medications were captured in the source database. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of HMB patients did not receive the recommended treatments. Healthcare costs were considerably increased in the presence of an HMB diagnosis.

Cost-effectiveness of treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding affects up to one third of women in the United States, resulting in a reduced quality of life and significant cost to the health care system. Multiple treatment options exist, offering different potential for symptom control at highly variable initial costs, but the relative value of these treatment options is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of 4 treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding: hysterectomy, resectoscopic endometrial ablation, nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation, and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. STUDY DESIGN: We formulated a decision tree evaluating private payer costs and quality-adjusted life years over a 5 year time horizon for premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding and no suspected malignancy. For each treatment option, we used probabilities derived from literature review to estimate frequencies of minor complications, major complications, and treatment failure resulting in the need for additional treatments. Treatments were compared in terms of total average costs, quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to understand the range of possible outcomes if model inputs were varied. RESULTS: The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system had superior quality-of-life outcomes to hysterectomy with lower costs. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system was cost-effective compared with hysterectomy in the majority of scenarios (90%). Both resectoscopic and nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation were associated with reduced costs compared with hysterectomy but resulted in a lower average quality of life. According to standard willingness-to-pay thresholds, resectoscopic endometrial ablation was considered cost effective compared with hysterectomy in 44% of scenarios, and nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation was considered cost effective compared with hysterectomy in 53% of scenarios. CONCLUSION: Comparing all trade-offs associated with 4 possible treatments of heavy menstrual bleeding, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system was superior to both hysterectomy and endometrial ablation in terms of cost and quality of life. Hysterectomy is associated with a superior quality of life and fewer complications than either type of ablation but at a higher cost. For women who are unwilling or unable to choose the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system as a first-course treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding, consideration of cost, procedure-specific complications, and patient preferences can guide the decision between hysterectomy and ablation.

Exploring the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Compare Pharmaceutical Treatments for Menorrhagia.

BACKGROUND: The extra-welfarist theoretical framework tends to focus on health-related quality of life, whilst the welfarist framework captures a wider notion of well-being. EQ-5D and SF-6D are commonly used to value outcomes in chronic conditions with episodic symptoms, such as heavy menstrual bleeding (clinically termed menorrhagia). Because of their narrow-health focus and the condition's periodic nature these measures may be unsuitable. A viable alternative measure is willingness to pay (WTP) from the welfarist framework. OBJECTIVE: We explore the use of WTP in a preliminary cost-benefit analysis comparing pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia. METHODS: A cost-benefit analysis was carried out based on an outcome of WTP. The analysis is based in the UK primary care setting over a 24-month time period, with a partial societal perspective. Ninety-nine women completed a WTP exercise from the ex-ante (pre-treatment/condition) perspective. Maximum average WTP values were elicited for two pharmaceutical treatments, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and oral treatment. Cost data were offset against WTP and the net present value derived for treatment. Qualitative information explaining the WTP values was also collected. RESULTS: Oral treatment was indicated to be the most cost-beneficial intervention costing £107 less than LNG-IUS and generating £7 more benefits. The mean incremental net present value for oral treatment compared with LNG-IUS was £113. The use of the WTP approach was acceptable as very few protests and non-responses were observed. CONCLUSION: The preliminary cost-benefit analysis results recommend oral treatment as the first-line treatment for menorrhagia. The WTP approach is a feasible alternative to the conventional EQ-5D/SF-6D approaches and offers advantages by capturing benefits beyond health, which is particularly relevant in menorrhagia.

Economic and clinical benefits of radiofrequency ablation versus hysterectomy in patients suffering from menorrhagia: a retrospective analysis with German health claims data.

OBJECTIVE: To assess clinical and economic benefits of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) compared to hysterectomy when treating patients suffering from menorrhagia. METHODS: Based on German health claims data, a retrospective, longitudinal, observational analysis was performed. Patients having continuously statutory health insurance coverage during the study and being coded for menorrhagia and a relevant treatment option were included in the analysis. The control group was created using propensity score matching. RESULTS: We discovered that using RFA generates cost savings of €1844 during the quarter of performance. As direct costs during a 2-year follow-up show similar levels in both groups, these initial savings can be preserved. This is partly because even if more patients in the RFA group were re-coded for menorrhagia after initial therapy, just a small proportion of these patients required another surgical intervention. CONCLUSION: RFA should more often be considered a relevant treatment option both from an economic and a medical point of view.

Cost-effectiveness analysis in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and costs associated with first-line medical treatments for chronic heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) in Spain. STUDY DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) with the estradiol valerate/dienogest multiphase oral contraceptive (E2V/DNG), combined oral contraceptives (COC) and progestins (PROG). Study patients were fertile women diagnosed with HMB who initially wished to remain fertile. A Markov model based on reported clinical data and the opinion of a panel of experts was used. The time horizon of the analysis was 5 years. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS), discounting both costs (€ 2013) and future effects at an annual rate of 3%. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: In the analysis at 5 years, the LNG-IUS was associated with a gain of 0.67, 2.22, and 3.53 symptoms free months (SFM) compared with E2V/DNG, COC and PROG, respectively. LNG-IUS contributed more quality-adjusted life months (QALM) than the other treatment alternatives (+1.74 vs. E2V/DNG, +3.33 vs. COC +3.53 vs. PROG). First-line LNG-IUS treatment resulted in savings of € 583, € 988, and € 1891 vs. E2V/DNG, COC and PROG, respectively. These cost benefits, coupled with the greater clinical benefits in terms of SFM and QALM, show that LNG-IUS is the dominant option (less costly and more effective). CONCLUSION: LNG-IUS is the medical treatment of choice and cost-saving option for the control of HMB in Spain.

Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies for the management of abnormal uterine bleeding (heavy menstrual bleeding and post-menopausal bleeding): a decision analysis.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) and post-menopausal bleeding (PMB) together constitute the commonest gynaecological presentation in secondary care and impose substantial demands on health service resources. Accurate diagnosis is of key importance to realising effective treatment, reducing morbidity and, in the case of PMB, reducing mortality. There are many tests available, including transvaginal scan (TVS), endometrial biopsy (EBx), saline infusion sonography and outpatient hysteroscopy (OPH); however, optimal diagnostic work-up is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the most cost-effective diagnostic testing strategy for the diagnosis and treatment of (i) HMB and (ii) PMB. DATA SOURCES: Parameter inputs were derived from systematic quantitative reviews, individual patient data (IPD) from existing data sets and focused searches for specific data. In the absence of data estimates, the consensus view of an expert clinical panel was obtained. METHODS: Two clinically informed decision-analytic models were constructed to reflect current service provision for the diagnostic work-up of women presenting with HMB and PMB. The model-based economic evaluation took the form of a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the NHS in a contemporary, 'one-stop' secondary care clinical setting, where all indicated testing modalities would be available during a single visit. RESULTS: Two potentially cost-effective testing strategies for the initial investigation of women with HMB were identified: OPH alone or in combination with EBx. Although a combination testing strategy of OPH + EBx was marginally more effective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was approximately £21,000 to gain one more satisfied patient, whereas for OPH it was just £360 when compared with treatment with the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) without investigation. Initial testing with OPH was the most cost-effective testing approach for women wishing to preserve fertility and for women with symptoms refractory to empirical treatment with a LNG-IUS. For the investigation of PMB, selective use of TVS based on historical risk prediction for the diagnostic work-up of women presenting with PMB generated an ICER compared with our reference strategy of 'no initial work-up' of £129,000 per extra woman surviving 5 years. The ICERs for the two other non-dominated testing strategies, combining history and TVS or combining OPH and TVS, were over £2M each. LIMITATIONS: In the absence of IPD, estimates of accuracy for test combinations presented some uncertainty where test results were modelled as being discordant. CONCLUSIONS: For initial investigation of women presenting to secondary care with HMB who do not require preservation of their fertility, our research suggests a choice between OPH alone or a combination of OPH and EBx. From our investigation, OPH appears to be the optimal first-line diagnostic test used for the investigation of women presenting to secondary care with HMB wishing to preserve their fertility or refractory to previous medical treatment with the LNG-IUS. We would suggest that the current recommendation of basing the initial investigation of women with PMB on the universal TVS measurement of endometrial thickness at a 5-mm threshold may need to be replaced by a strategy of restricting TVS to women with risk factors (e.g. increasing age-raised body mass index, diabetes or nulliparity), obtained from the preceding clinical assessment. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost-effectiveness of hysterectomy for benign gynecological conditions: a systematic review.

The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of hysterectomy performed for benign indications. Hysterectomy remains the most common major gynecological operation in the Western world. Rates of hysterectomy have not declined as expected with the introduction of new treatment options. Furthermore, use of laparoscopic techniques varies widely within the Nordic countries. We designed a systematic review in a University Central Hospital. The sample included all published studies regarding the cost-effectiveness of hysterectomy performed for benign indications (n = 1666). Medline, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Nursing databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were the availability of pre- and post-intervention health-related quality of life measures (HRQoL) and data on costs. HRQoL, costs, and cost-effectiveness of treatment were the main outcome measures. Studies (n = 24) focused on treatment of symptomatic fibroids (n = 8), treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (n = 10), various surgical techniques (n = 5) and the effect of various indications for hysterectomy (n = 2). Follow-up periods varied from 4 months to over 10 years. SF/RAND-36 or EQ-5D measures and societal cost perspective were most commonly used. Only 11 studies used individual patient data. HRQoL following hysterectomy was generally good but costs were high. The cost-effectiveness depended on indication, age, and duration of follow-up. The cost-effectiveness of hysterectomy has been surprisingly poorly studied. Conclusions are difficult to draw due to different study designs, indications, follow-up times, and HRQoL instruments used. Rates of hysterectomy have declined less than expected with the introduction of new treatment modalities. Costs of surgery are high. Laparoscopic hysterectomy seems to be the least cost-effective, although further data from original patient cohorts with long-term follow-up are needed.

An assessment of economic measures used in menorrhagia: a systematic review.

'Menorrhagia', or heavy menstrual bleeding, is a common problem affecting women. The principal driver for treatment is women's experience of its interference in their lives, so a measure of quality of life (QoL) is increasingly used as the primary outcome to assess treatment success. QoL measures need to accurately reflect women's concerns as these measures are often used to inform resource allocation decisions within the healthcare service. Healthcare decision-makers often advocate the use of generic measures so as to achieve consistency when making decisions. Generic measures, by definition, have a broad focus on QoL in contrast to disease-specific measures that focus on dimensions of health relevant to the condition. We report a systematic review of studies that have either used or assessed economic outcome measures in menorrhagia, and present criteria for assessing which measure is the most appropriate. Studies including women presenting with menorrhagia, and using or assessing economic measures were sought by searching nine electronic databases. Fifty-six eligible studies were identified. A narrative synthesis was most suitable to the review question. Eleven studies assessed the psychometric properties of the outcome measures, twelve studies applied the measures in an economic evaluation, and thirty-three used them in effectiveness studies. Mixed results on the psychometric properties of the instruments were observed. Studies were often found to include both a disease-specific and a generic measure. We found no consensus on the most appropriate economic outcome measure to use when assessing the cost-effectiveness of treatment for menorrhagia. This is an important finding as QoL is the primary focus for treatment decisions. The cyclical nature of the condition has a large impact on the reliability and validity of outcome measurement. Alternative measures, such as willingness-to-pay, which embrace more than health and avoid standard recall periods should be explored.

Burden of menstrual symptoms in Japanese women: results from a survey-based study.

UNLABELLED: . OBJECTIVE: Menstrual symptoms are associated with various health problems in women and may also significantly impact their lives. This study aims to assess the current burden of menstrual symptoms in Japanese women. METHODS: Two online surveys were conducted among women aged 15-49 years, where sampling was designed to approximate the age and geographic distribution in Japan. The first survey collected data on menstrual symptom severity based on a modified, 35-item, Japanese version of the Menstrual Distress Questionnaire (mMDQ), current treatments, and impact on work productivity. The second survey collected costs of outpatient treatment within the previous 3 months. Additional outcomes of the second survey will be presented in a separate paper. RESULTS: In this study, 19,254 women had menses, with 74% suffering from menstrual symptoms. A total of 50% reported pain and 19% reported heavy bleeding. Increasing severity of menstrual symptoms and self-reported heavy bleeding were related to more outpatient visits and greater work productivity loss. Among subjects with heavy bleeding, increasing severity of symptoms was related to greater interference with daily life. The estimated annual economic burden extrapolated to the Japanese female population was 683 billion Japanese Yen (JPY) or ~8.6 billion United States Dollars (USD). LIMITATIONS: The study population may be biased due to the online survey method. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, this is the first large-scale research assessing outcomes by severity categories for all menstrual symptoms and women's perception of bleeding. A large proportion of women suffer from menstrual symptoms, and symptom severity impacts women's lives. Menstrual symptoms lead to significant economic burden, mainly due to work productivity loss. However, the majority of women do not visit a gynecologist, even when their menstrual symptoms are severe. Thus, increasing public awareness on the recently available medical treatments has the potential to improve the overall burden of menstrual problems.

The cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for the treatment of idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Heavy menstrual bleeding negatively impacts the health and quality of life of about 18 million women in the United States. Although some studies have established the clinical effectiveness of heavy menstrual bleeding treatments, few have evaluated their cost-effectiveness. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) compared with other therapies for idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding. METHODS: We developed a model comparing the clinical and economic outcomes (from a US payer perspective) of three broad initial treatment strategies over 5 years: LNG-IUS, oral agents, or surgery. Up to three nonsurgical treatment lines, followed by up to two surgical lines, were allowed; unintended pregnancy was possible, and women could discontinue any time during nonsurgical treatments. Menstrual blood loss of 80 ml or more per cycle determined treatment failure. RESULTS: Initiating treatment with LNG-IUS resulted in the fewest hysterectomies (6 per 1000 women), the most quality-adjusted life-years (3.78), and the lowest costs ($1137) among all the nonsurgical strategies. Initiating treatment with LNG-IUS was also less costly than surgery, resulted in fewer hysterectomies (vs. 9 per 1000 for ablation) but was associated with fewer quality-adjusted life-years gained per patient (vs. 3.80 and 3.88 for ablation and hysterectomy, respectively). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS: LNG-IUS resulted in the lowest treatment costs and the fewest number of hysterectomies performed over 5 years compared with all other initial strategies and resulted in the most quality-adjusted life-years gained among nonsurgical options. Initial treatment with LNG-IUS is the least costly and most effective option for women desiring to preserve their fertility.

Cost-minimisation analysis of endometrial thermal ablation in a day case or outpatient setting under different anaesthesia regimens.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost difference between a daycase endometrial thermal ablation performed under general anaesthesia and an outpatient endometrial ablation using local anaesthetic. STUDY DESIGN: Calculations using real reported resource use in 20 daycase procedures and 16 outpatient procedures. RESULTS: The costs were 1865 euros for daycase procedure versus 1065 euros for outpatient procedure. CONCLUSION: The cost of endometrial thermal ablation can be considerably minimised by taking the procedure out of the theatre and performing it under local anaesthetic instead of general anaesthesia. This setting makes endometrial thermal ablation cost-effective.

Cost burden and treatment patterns associated with management of heavy menstrual bleeding.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the healthcare resource use, work productivity loss, costs, and treatment patterns associated with newly diagnosed idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) using a large employer database. METHODS: Medical and pharmacy claims (1998-2009) from 55 self-insured U.S. companies were analyzed. Women aged 18-52 years with ≥2 HMB claims (ICD-9 626.2, 627.0) and continuously enrolled for ≥6 months before the first claim were matched 1:1 with controls. Exclusion criteria were cancer, pregnancy, and infertility; HMB-related uterine conditions; endometrial ablation; hysterectomy; anticoagulant medications; and other known HMB causes. All-cause healthcare resource use and costs were compared between the HMB and control cohorts using statistical methods accounting for matched study design. Treatment patterns were examined for HMB subjects. RESULTS: HMB and control cohorts (n=29,842 in both) were matched and balanced in baseline characteristics and costs. During follow-up, HMB subjects had significantly higher all-cause resource use than did control subjects: hospitalization incidence rate ratio (IRR)=2.70 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.62-2.79); emergency room visits IRR=1.35 (95% CI 1.31-1.38); outpatient visits IRR=1.29 (95% CI 1.29-1.30). Average annualized all-cause costs were also higher for HMB subjects than controls (mean difference $2,607, p<0.001). Costs associated with HMB claims represented 50% ($1,313) of the all-cause cost difference. Of HMB subjects, 63.2% underwent surgical treatment as initial therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In this large matched-cohort study, an idiopathic diagnosis of HMB was associated with high rates of surgical intervention and increased healthcare resource use and costs.

Hysterectomy, endometrial ablation and Mirena® for heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hysterectomy, first- and second-generation endometrial ablation (EA), and Mirena® (Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. DESIGN: Individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of existing randomised controlled trials to determine the short- to medium-term effects of hysterectomy, EA and Mirena. A population-based retrospective cohort study based on record linkage to investigate the long-term effects of ablative techniques and hysterectomy in terms of failure rates and complications. Cost-effectiveness analysis of hysterectomy versus first- and second-generation ablative techniques and Mirena. SETTING: Data from women treated for heavy menstrual bleeding were obtained from national and international trials. Scottish national data were obtained from the Scottish Information Services Division. PARTICIPANTS: Women who were undergoing treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding were included. INTERVENTIONS: Hysterectomy, first- and second-generation EA, and Mirena. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Satisfaction, recurrence of symptoms, further surgery and costs. RESULTS: Data from randomised trials indicated that at 12 months more women were dissatisfied with first-generation EA than hysterectomy [odds ratio (OR): 2.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.54 to 3.93; p = 0.0002), but hospital stay [WMD (weighted mean difference) 3.0 days, 95% CI 2.9 to 3.1 days; p < 0.00001] and time to resumption of normal activities (WMD 5.2 days, 95% CI 4.7 to 5.7 days; p < 0.00001) were longer for hysterectomy. Unsatisfactory outcomes associated with first- and second-generation techniques were comparable [12.2% (123/1006) vs 10.6% (110/1034); OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.62; p = 0.2). Rates of dissatisfaction with Mirena and second-generation EA were similar [18.1% (17/94) vs 22.5% (23/102); OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.53; p = 0.4]. Indirect estimates suggested that hysterectomy was also preferable to second-generation EA (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.24; p = 0.006) in terms of patient dissatisfaction. The evidence to suggest that hysterectomy is preferable to Mirena was weaker (OR 2.22, 95% CI 0.94 to 5.29; p = 0.07). In women treated by EA or hysterectomy and followed up for a median [interquartile range (IQR)] duration of 6.2 (2.7-10.8) and 11.6 (7.9-14.8) years, respectively, 962/11,299 (8.5%) women originally treated by EA underwent further gynaecological surgery. While the risk of adnexal surgery was similar in both groups [adjusted hazards ratio 0.80 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.15)], women who had undergone ablation were less likely to need pelvic floor repair [adjusted hazards ratio 0.62 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.77)] and tension-free vaginal tape surgery for stress urinary incontinence [adjusted hazards ratio 0.55 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.74)]. Abdominal hysterectomy led to a lower chance of pelvic floor repair surgery [hazards ratio 0.54 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.64)] than vaginal hysterectomy. The incidence of endometrial cancer following EA was 0.02%. Hysterectomy was the most cost-effective treatment. It dominated first-generation EA and, although more expensive, produced more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than second-generation EA and Mirena. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for hysterectomy compared with Mirena and hysterectomy compared with second-generation ablation were £1440 per additional QALY and £970 per additional QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite longer hospital stay and time to resumption of normal activities, more women were satisfied after hysterectomy than after EA. The few data available suggest that Mirena is potentially cheaper and more effective than first-generation ablation techniques, with rates of satisfaction that are similar to second-generation techniques. Owing to a paucity of trials, there is limited evidence to suggest that hysterectomy is preferable to Mirena. The risk of pelvic floor surgery is higher in women treated by hysterectomy than by ablation. Although the most cost-effective strategy, hysterectomy may not be considered an initial option owing to its invasive nature and higher risk of complications. Future research should focus on evaluation of the clinical effectivesness and cost-effectiveness of the best second-generation EA technique under local anaesthetic versus Mirena and types of hysterectomy such as laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy versus conventional hysterectomy and second-generation EA. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Hysterectomy, endometrial ablation, and levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) for treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: cost effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To undertake a cost effectiveness analysis comparing first and second generation endometrial ablative techniques, hysterectomy, and the levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) for treating heavy menstrual bleeding. DESIGN: Model based economic evaluation with data from an individual patient data meta-analysis supplemented with cost and outcome data from published sources taking an NHS (National Health Service) perspective. A state transition (Markov) model was developed, the structure being informed by the reviews of the trials and clinical input. A subgroup analysis, one way sensitivity analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also carried out. POPULATION: Four hypothetical cohorts of women with heavy menstrual bleeding. INTERVENTIONS: One of four alternative strategies: Mirena, first or second generation endometrial ablation techniques, or hysterectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost effectiveness based on incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY). RESULTS: Hysterectomy is the preferred strategy for the first intervention for heavy menstrual bleeding. Although hysterectomy is more expensive, it produces more QALYs relative to other remaining strategies and is likely to be considered cost effective. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for hysterectomy compared with Mirena is £1440 (€1633, $2350) per additional QALY. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for hysterectomy compared with second generation ablation is £970 per additional QALY. CONCLUSION: In light of the acceptable thresholds used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, hysterectomy would be considered the preferred strategy for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. The results concur with those of other studies but are highly sensitive to utility values used in the analysis.

OTC tranexamic acid for heavy menstrual bleeding?

Tranexamic acid, an oral antifibrinolytic, is due to become available soon for purchase from pharmacies without prescription for the self-management of heavy menstrual bleeding. It is the first over-the-counter (OTC) medicine licensed specifically for this condition.1 The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) views such availability of tranexamic acid (to be sold as Cyklo-F) as "an important step for women, helping improve their quality of life and providing them with the greater convenience of better access to medicines".1 Here we review the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid and discuss whether its OTC availability is a helpful development.

Socioeconomic and racial predictors of undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy for selected benign diseases: analysis of 341487 hysterectomies.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Socioeconomic status and race are important determinants of health care access in the United States. The purpose of our study was to evaluate whether these factors influence use of laparoscopic hysterectomy for management of benign gynecologic diseases. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-3). SETTING: Data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample, 1998 to 2002. PATIENTS: All records of women with primary discharge diagnosis of uterine leiomyomas or menorrhagia who underwent hysterectomy (laparoscopy or abdominal) were included in the study. INTERVENTIONS: Race (Caucasian, African-American, Hispanic, or other), median household income (<$25000, $25000-$34999, $35000-$44999, or > or =$45000), and insurance status (private, Medicare, Medicaid, or other) were evaluated as determinants of laparoscopic surgical intervention. Unconditional logistic regression was used to estimate likelihood of laparoscopic approach to hysterectomy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 341487 records for hysterectomy, 295857 were performed by abdominal and 45630 by laparoscopic approach. In adjusted analyses, African-Americans, Hispanics, and other ethnicities were less likely to undergo laparoscopic hysterectomy; adjusted OR (95% CI): 0.44 (0.42-0.45), 0.58 (0.55-0.61), and 0.68 (0.64-0.72), respectively, as compared with Caucasians. As compared with women with median income of less than $25000, laparoscopic approach was more commonly performed on women with median household income $25000 to $34999, 1.18 (1.10-1.26); $35000 to $44999, 1.13 (1.0-1.21); and $45000 and above, 1.14 (1.06-1.22). As compared with women with Medicaid, laparoscopic approach was more likely to be performed on women with private insurance: 1.45 (1.42-1.62). CONCLUSION: In the United States, median household income, insurance status, and race appear to be important independent determinants of access to laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign diseases.

Cost-utility of levonorgestrel intrauterine system compared with hysterectomy and second generation endometrial ablative techniques in managing patients with menorrhagia in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-utility of levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS; Mirena) compared to second generation endometrial ablative techniques [i.e. microwave endometrial ablation (MEA) and thermal balloon endometrial ablation (TBEA)) and hysterectomy in the UK. METHODS: Clinical and utility data from a 5-year randomised controlled trial comparing LNG-IUS with hysterectomy were combined with further data from published studies to construct a state-transition (Markov) model. The model depicted the movement of patients between health states over 5 years following treatment for menorrhagia. The model was used to estimate the cost-utility of LNG-IUS followed by ablation (L-A); LNG-IUS followed by hysterectomy (L-H); immediate ablation (MEA or TBEA) and immediate hysterectomy in the UK at 2004/2005 prices, from the perspective of the UK's National Health Service (NHS). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The expected 5-yearly cost of treating menorrhagia with L-A, L-H, TBEA, MEA and hysterectomy was estimated to be 828 pounds sterling, 1355 pounds sterling, 1679 pounds sterling, 1812 pounds sterling and 2983 pounds sterling per patient respectively and the expected level of health gain to be 4.14, 4.12, 4.13, 4.13 and 4.01 QALYs per patient respectively. LNG-IUS followed by ablation dominated all the alternative treatments. Hysterectomy was dominated by the alternative treatments. Sensitivity analysis found the model to be sensitive to the quality of life data used. CONCLUSION: Within the model's limitations, LNGIUS followed by ablation appears to offer the NHS a cost-effective treatment for menorrhagia, when compared to immediate surgery, affording the NHS a less expensive treatment modality without detrimental effects on resulting health gain.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of levonorgestrel intrauterine system and thermal balloon ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) (Mirena; Schering Co., Turku, Finland) and thermal balloon ablation (Thermachoicetrade mark; Gynecare Inc., Menlo Park, CA, USA) for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. DESIGN: An open, pragmatic, prospective randomised trial. SETTING: A menstrual disorders clinic at National Women's Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. POPULATION: Seventy-nine women with self-defined heavy menstrual bleeding randomised to the LNG-IUS (40 women) or the thermal balloon ablation (39 women). METHODS: Decision tree modelling using primary source data was used to identify the incremental cost-effectiveness of the two treatments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Direct and indirect costs of medical treatment, including treatment costs, subsequent medical procedures, lost income and medical treatment for failed procedures. The change in quality of life as assessed by the Short Form-36 (SF-36) measured between time of treatment and 24 months was the primary outcome measure. Economic modelling examined the expected cost and outcome for a woman entering each treatment. Sensitivity analysis explored the robustness of the results. RESULTS: The expected cost of treatment was $NZ1241 ($US869) for the LNG-IUS and $NZ2418 ($US1693) for the thermal balloon ablation. The LNG-IUS was associated with an increase of 15 points on the SF-36 scale, compared with 12 points for the thermal balloon ablation. Sensitivity analysis indicates that the results are robust to a 25% decrease in the price of the primary cost drivers and to variations in the rates of failed treatment between the conditions. CONCLUSION: The LNG-IUS would appear to be cost-effective when compared with the thermal balloon ablation for treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.