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.

Employer-perspective cost comparison of surgical treatments for abnormal uterine bleeding.

Aim: To estimate direct and indirect costs of surgical treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) from a self-insured employer's perspective. Methods: Employer-sponsored insurance claims data were analyzed to estimate costs owing to absence and short-term disability 1 year following global endometrial ablation (GEA), outpatient hysterectomy (OPH) and inpatient hysterectomy (IPH). Results: Costs for women who had GEA are substantially less than costs for women who had either OPH or IPH, with the difference ranging from approximately $7700 to approximately $10,000 for direct costs and approximately $4200 to approximately $4600 for indirect costs. Women who had GEA missed 21.8-24.0 fewer works days. Conclusion: Study results suggest lower healthcare costs associated with GEA versus OPH or IPH from a self-insured employer perspective.

Women with Newly Diagnosed Uterine Fibroids: Treatment Patterns and Cost Comparison for Select Treatment Options.

The primary objective of this study was to describe surgical treatment patterns among women with newly diagnosed uterine fibroids (UF). A secondary objective was to estimate the medical costs associated with other common surgical interventions for UF. Claims-based commercial and Medicare data (2011-2016) were used to identify women aged ≥30 years with continuous enrollment for at least 12 months before and after a new diagnosis of UF. Receipt of a surgical or radiologic procedure (hysterectomy, myomectomy, endometrial ablation, uterine artery embolization, and curettage) was the primary outcome. Health care resource utilization and costs were calculated for women with at least 12 months of continuous enrollment following a UF surgical procedure. Among women who met selection criteria, 31.7% of patients underwent a surgical procedure; 20.9% of these underwent hysterectomy. An increase was observed over time in the percentage of women undergoing outpatient hysterectomy (from 27.0% to 40.2%) and hysteroscopic myomectomy (from 8.0% to 11.5%). The cost analysis revealed that total health care costs for hysteroscopic myomectomy ($17,324) were significantly lower (P < 0.001) than those for women who underwent inpatient hysterectomy ($24,027) and those for women undergoing the 3 comparison procedures. Hysterectomy was the most common surgical intervention. Patients undergoing inpatient hysterectomy had the highest health care costs. Although less expensive, minimally invasive approaches are becoming more common; they are performed infrequently in patients with newly diagnosed UF. The results of this study may be useful in guiding decisions regarding the most appropriate and cost-effective surgical treatment for UF.

Economic Evaluation of Global Endometrial Ablation Versus Inpatient and Outpatient Hysterectomy for Treatment of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: US Commercial and Medicaid Payer Perspectives.

Every year, abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) exacts a heavy toll on women's health and leads to high costs for the US health care system. The literature shows that endometrial ablation results in fewer complications, shorter recovery and lower costs than more commonly performed hysterectomy procedures. The objective of this study was to model clinical-economic outcomes, budget impact, and cost-effectiveness of global endometrial ablation (GEA) versus outpatient hysterectomy (OPH) and inpatient hysterectomy (IPH) procedures. A decision tree, state-transition (semi-Markov) economic model was developed to simulate 3 hypothetical cohorts of women who received surgical treatment for AUB (GEA, OPH, and IPH) over 1, 2, and 3 years to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes for GEA vs. OPH and GEA vs. IPH. Two versions of the model were created to reflect both commercial health care payer and US Medicaid perspectives, and analyses were conducted for both payer types. Total health care costs in the first year after GEA were substantially lower compared with those for IPH and OPH. Budget impact analysis results showed that increasing GEA utilization yields total annual cost savings of about $906,000 for a million-member commercial health plan and about $152,000 in cost savings for a typical-sized state Medicaid plan with 1.4 million members. Cost-effectiveness analysis results for both perspectives showed GEA as economically dominant (conferring greater benefit at lower cost) over both OPH and IPH in the 1-year commercial scenario. This study demonstrates that, for some patients, GEA may prove to be a safe, uterus-sparing, cost-effective alternative to OPH and IPH for the surgical treatment of AUB.

Endometrial resection and global ablation in the normal uterus.

There are various methods that can be used to destroy the endometrium as a treatment for menorrhagia. This chapter reviews the history, rationale, evidence, indications and long-term safety and efficacy of the current techniques. It also discusses endometrial ablation in the context of its clinical utility in comparison with existing alternative treatments.

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.

Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System (52 mg) for Idiopathic Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: A Health Technology Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding affects as many as one in three women and has negative physical, economic, and psychosocial impacts including activity limitations and reduced quality of life. The goal of treatment is to make menstruation manageable, and options include medical therapy or surgery such as endometrial ablation or hysterectomy. This review examined the evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) as a treatment alternative for idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the clinical and economic evidence comparing LNG-IUS with usual medical therapy, endometrial ablation, or hysterectomy. Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and the Centres for Reviews and Dissemination were searched from inception to August 2015. The quality of the evidence was assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also completed an economic evaluation to determine the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the LNG-IUS compared with endometrial ablation and with hysterectomy. The economic evaluation was conducted from the perspective the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. RESULTS: Relevant systematic reviews (n = 18) returned from the literature search were used to identify eligible randomized controlled trials, and 16 trials were included. The LNG-IUS improved quality of life and reduced menstrual blood loss better than usual medical therapy. There was no evidence of a significant difference in these outcomes compared with the improvements offered by endometrial ablation or hysterectomy. Mild hormonal side effects were the most commonly reported. The quality of the evidence varied from very low to moderate across outcomes. Results from the economic evaluation showed the LNG-IUS was less costly (incremental saving of $372 per person) and more effective providing higher quality-adjusted life years (incremental value of 0.05) compared with endometrial ablation. Similarly, the LNG-IUS costs less (incremental saving of $3,138 per person) and yields higher quality-adjusted life-years (incremental value of 0.04) compared with hysterectomy. Publicly funding LNG-IUS as an alternative to endometrial ablation and hysterectomy would result in annual cost savings of $3 million to $9 million and $0.1 million to $23 million, respectively, over the first 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The 52-mg LNG-IUS is an effective and cost-effective treatment option for idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding. It improves quality of life and menstrual blood loss, and is well tolerated compared with endometrial ablation, hysterectomy, or usual medical therapies.

Cost-Effectiveness of Global Endometrial Ablation vs. Hysterectomy for Treatment of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: US Commercial and Medicaid Payer Perspectives.

Cost-effectiveness modeling studies of global endometrial ablation (GEA) for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) from a US perspective are lacking. The objective of this study was to model the cost-effectiveness of GEA vs. hysterectomy for treatment of AUB in the United States from both commercial and Medicaid payer perspectives. The study team developed a 1-, 3-, and 5-year semi-Markov decision-analytic model to simulate 2 hypothetical patient cohorts of women with AUB-1 treated with GEA and the other with hysterectomy. Clinical and economic data (including treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, direct costs, and productivity costs) came from analyses of commercial and Medicaid claims databases. Analysis results show that cost savings with simultaneous reduction in treatment complications and fewer days lost from work are achieved with GEA versus hysterectomy over almost all time horizons and under both the commercial payer and Medicaid perspectives. Cost-effectiveness metrics also favor GEA over hysterectomy from both the commercial payer and Medicaid payer perspectives-evidence strongly supporting the clinical-economic value about GEA versus hysterectomy. Results will interest clinicians, health care payers, and self-insured employers striving for cost-effective AUB treatments.

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.

Comparison of direct and indirect costs of abnormal uterine bleeding treatment with global endometrial ablation and hysterectomy.

AIM: The objective was to compare abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) direct healthcare costs and indirect work absence or short-term disability costs associated with treatment with second-generation global endometrial ablation (GEA) or hysterectomy. METHODS: Women aged 30-55 years with AUB who underwent GEA or hysterectomy during 2006-2010 were identified in the Truven Health MarketScan(®) Commercial and Health and Productivity Management databases. RESULTS & CONCLUSION: Two-thirds (66.3%) of the 61,602 study patients underwent GEA compared with hysterectomy (33.7%). Hysterectomy patients had higher treatment costs (US$12,147 vs 5837; p < 0.001), higher annual absenteeism costs (US$7543 vs 5621; p < 0.001), were four-times more likely to have a short-term disability claim (84 vs 21%; p < 0.001) and had higher per-patient short-term disability costs (US$5744 vs 1361; p < 0.001). Overall hysterectomy costs were approximately twice those of GEA.

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.

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.

A cost-utility analysis of microwave endometrial ablation versus thermal balloon endometrial ablation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of microwave endometrial ablation (MEA) and thermal balloon endometrial ablation (TBALL) for heavy menstrual bleeding. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis performed alongside a pragmatic RCT in a single hospital within Scotland on women undergoing MEA and TBALL. Resource use data collected from all 314 trial participants were combined with study specific and published unit cost data to estimate a cost per patient. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were based on EQ-5D responses at baseline, 2 weeks, 6 and 12 months. The incremental cost per QALY of TBALL versus MEA was calculated and bootstrapping was performed to determine the likelihood that a treatment would be cost-effective at different threshold values for society's willingness to pay for a QALY. RESULTS: The mean cost of TBALL (10 years equipment life, 100 uses annually) of reusable equipment was pound181 (95% confidence interval [CI] pound70-434) greater than MEA. There were no statistically significant differences between the total nonhealth costs and health benefits of the two arms. On average, MEA provided more QALYs after adjusting for baseline EQ-5D score (0.017; 95% CI 0.017-0.051). In terms of mean incremental cost per QALY, MEA was, on average, dominant (less costly and at least as effective) and there was over a 90% chance that MEA would be considered cost-effective at a pound20,000 threshold of a cost per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: MEA is likely to be more cost-effective than TBALL at 1 year. Further longer-term follow-up is, however, needed.

The effectiveness of endometrial ablation with the Hydro ThermAblator (HTA) for abnormal uterine bleeding.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the overall effectiveness and risk factors for failure of hydrothermal ablation in the management of abnormal uterine bleeding. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients who underwent hydrothermal ablation for abnormal uterine bleeding at our institution from July 2005 through February 2008. Variables analyzed included patient demographics, insurance status, body mass index, bleeding pattern, obstetric history, prior medical therapy and duration, uterine characteristics, and tobacco use history. RESULTS: In all, 159 patients were identified and 142 charts were eligible for evaluation. A total of 45 patients (31.6%) had return of preablation vaginal bleeding. Menometrorrhagia was a significant predictor for failure (P = .027) and subsequent hysterectomy (P = .0025). Younger age (P = .044), tobacco use (P = .042), and Medicaid/Medicare insurance status (P = .039) were also associated with a higher risk of failure. CONCLUSION: Women who are younger, use tobacco products, and have menometrorrhagia are more likely to fail hydrothermal ablation.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system vs. endometrial thermal ablation for menorrhagia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of a Levonorgestrel-releasing Intrauterine System (LNG-IUS) in controlling menorrhagia in comparison with endometrial thermal rollerball ablation. DESIGN: Seventy-nine consecutive patients with menorrhagia underwent either LNG-IUS insertion (n=42) or hysteroscopical endometrial thermal rollerball ablation (n=37) in a prospective, observational, comparative study. Women reported duration of uterine bleeding in days prior to, and six and 12 months after each intervention. Prior to each intervention, endometrial, cervical or other pathological conditions of the genital tract were excluded. GnRH analogues for endometrial suppression were given for ten weeks before endometrial ablation but not prior to LNG-IUS insertion. RESULTS: There were no differences in duration of uterine bleeding before each intervention in the two groups. The duration of uterine bleeding was lower in the LNG-IUS group as compared with endometrial ablation at six (p<0.001) and 12 months (p<0.001) after each intervention. Furthermore, the effect on reduction of bleeding was stronger in the LNG-IUS group as compared with the endometrial ablation group at six (p<0.001) and 12 months (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The LNG-IUS was more efficacious than endometrial thermal ablation in reducing duration of uterine bleeding at six and 12 months post-intervention.

Financial and quality-of-life burden of dysfunctional uterine bleeding among women agreeing to obtain surgical treatment.

PURPOSE: In this study, we sought to 1) describe elements of the financial and quality-of-life burden of dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB) from the perspective of women who agreed to obtain surgical treatment; 2) explore associations between DUB symptom characteristics and the financial and quality-of-life burden; 3) estimate the annual dollar value of the financial burden; and 4) estimate the most that could be spent on surgery to eliminate DUB symptoms for which medical treatment has been unsuccessful that would result in a $50,000/quality-adjusted life-year incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. METHODS: We collected baseline data on DUB symptoms and aspects of the financial and quality-of-life burden for 237 women agreeing to surgery for DUB in a randomized trial comparing hysterectomy with endometrial ablation. Measures included out-of-pocket pharmaceutical expenditures, excess expenditures on pads or tampons, the value of time missed from paid work and home management activities, and health utility. We used chi2 and t tests to assess the statistical significance of associations between DUB characteristics and the financial and quality-of-life burden. The annual financial burden was estimated. RESULTS: Pelvic pain and cramps were associated with activity limitations and tiredness was associated with a lower health utility. Excess pharmaceutical and pad and tampon costs were $333 per patient per year (95% confidence interval [CI], $263-$403). Excess paid work and home management loss costs were $2,291 per patient per year (95% CI, $1847-$2752). Effective surgical treatment costing $40,000 would be cost-effective compared with unsuccessful medical treatment. CONCLUSION: The financial and quality-of-life effects of DUB represent a substantial burden.

What are the total costs of surgical treatment for uterine fibroids?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the direct and indirect costs of uterine fibroid (UF) surgery. METHODS: Data were obtained from the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters databases for 1999-2004. Our sample included 22,860 women with insurance coverage who were treated surgically for UF and 14,214 women who were treated nonsurgically for UF. Medical care costs and missed workdays were divided into baseline (1 year prior to surgery) and postoperative (1 year after surgery) periods. For a subsample of women, we calculated average annual costs 3 years before and after their surgery. RESULTS: Of patients electing surgery, 85.9% underwent hysterectomy, 7.6% myomectomy, 4.9% endometrial ablation, and 1.6% uterine artery embolization (UAE). Women undergoing UAE incurred the highest medical care costs in the operative year ($16,430 unadjusted, $20,634 adjusted for confounders), followed by hysterectomy ($15,180 unadjusted, $17,390 adjusted), myomectomy ($14,726 unadjusted, $18,674 adjusted), and endometrial ablation ($12,096 unadjusted, $13,019 adjusted). Women treated nonsurgically incurred costs of $7,460 unadjusted and $8,257 adjusted during the year after they were diagnosed with UF. Three years after surgery, patients treated with hysterectomy had the lowest annual costs. Missed workdays in the year after surgery were high, resulting in significant losses to employers in the magnitude of $6,670-$25,229, depending on treatment, values assigned to missed workdays, and whether the analyses adjusted for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: UF surgical treatment costs were high. Absenteeism and disability were important components of the cost burden of UF treatment for women, their employers, and the healthcare system.