Cargando…

Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System vs. Usual Medical Treatment for Menorrhagia: An Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE: To undertake an economic evaluation alongside the largest randomised controlled trial comparing Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (‘LNG-IUS’) and usual medical treatment for women with menorrhagia in primary care; and compare the cost-effectiveness findings using two alternativ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sanghera, Sabina, Roberts, Tracy Elizabeth, Barton, Pelham, Frew, Emma, Daniels, Jane, Middleton, Lee, Gennard, Laura, Kai, Joe, Gupta, Janesh Kumar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956766/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24638071
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091891
_version_ 1782307710008557568
author Sanghera, Sabina
Roberts, Tracy Elizabeth
Barton, Pelham
Frew, Emma
Daniels, Jane
Middleton, Lee
Gennard, Laura
Kai, Joe
Gupta, Janesh Kumar
author_facet Sanghera, Sabina
Roberts, Tracy Elizabeth
Barton, Pelham
Frew, Emma
Daniels, Jane
Middleton, Lee
Gennard, Laura
Kai, Joe
Gupta, Janesh Kumar
author_sort Sanghera, Sabina
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To undertake an economic evaluation alongside the largest randomised controlled trial comparing Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (‘LNG-IUS’) and usual medical treatment for women with menorrhagia in primary care; and compare the cost-effectiveness findings using two alternative measures of quality of life. METHODS: 571 women with menorrhagia from 63 UK centres were randomised between February 2005 and July 2009. Women were randomised to having a LNG-IUS fitted, or usual medical treatment, after discussing with their general practitioner their contraceptive needs or desire to avoid hormonal treatment. The treatment was specified prior to randomisation. For the economic evaluation we developed a state transition (Markov) model with a 24 month follow-up. The model structure was informed by the trial women's pathway and clinical experts. The economic evaluation adopted a UK National Health Service perspective and was based on an outcome of incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) estimated using both EQ-5D and SF-6D. RESULTS: Using EQ-5D, LNG-IUS was the most cost-effective treatment for menorrhagia. LNG-IUS costs £100 more than usual medical treatment but generated 0.07 more QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for LNG-IUS compared to usual medical treatment was £1600 per additional QALY. Using SF-6D, usual medical treatment was the most cost-effective treatment. Usual medical treatment was both less costly (£100) and generated 0.002 more QALYs. CONCLUSION: Impact on quality of life is the primary indicator of treatment success in menorrhagia. However, the most cost-effective treatment differs depending on the quality of life measure used to estimate the QALY. Under UK guidelines LNG-IUS would be the recommended treatment for menorrhagia. This study demonstrates that the appropriate valuation of outcomes in menorrhagia is crucial.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3956766
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39567662014-03-18 Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System vs. Usual Medical Treatment for Menorrhagia: An Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial Sanghera, Sabina Roberts, Tracy Elizabeth Barton, Pelham Frew, Emma Daniels, Jane Middleton, Lee Gennard, Laura Kai, Joe Gupta, Janesh Kumar PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: To undertake an economic evaluation alongside the largest randomised controlled trial comparing Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (‘LNG-IUS’) and usual medical treatment for women with menorrhagia in primary care; and compare the cost-effectiveness findings using two alternative measures of quality of life. METHODS: 571 women with menorrhagia from 63 UK centres were randomised between February 2005 and July 2009. Women were randomised to having a LNG-IUS fitted, or usual medical treatment, after discussing with their general practitioner their contraceptive needs or desire to avoid hormonal treatment. The treatment was specified prior to randomisation. For the economic evaluation we developed a state transition (Markov) model with a 24 month follow-up. The model structure was informed by the trial women's pathway and clinical experts. The economic evaluation adopted a UK National Health Service perspective and was based on an outcome of incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) estimated using both EQ-5D and SF-6D. RESULTS: Using EQ-5D, LNG-IUS was the most cost-effective treatment for menorrhagia. LNG-IUS costs £100 more than usual medical treatment but generated 0.07 more QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for LNG-IUS compared to usual medical treatment was £1600 per additional QALY. Using SF-6D, usual medical treatment was the most cost-effective treatment. Usual medical treatment was both less costly (£100) and generated 0.002 more QALYs. CONCLUSION: Impact on quality of life is the primary indicator of treatment success in menorrhagia. However, the most cost-effective treatment differs depending on the quality of life measure used to estimate the QALY. Under UK guidelines LNG-IUS would be the recommended treatment for menorrhagia. This study demonstrates that the appropriate valuation of outcomes in menorrhagia is crucial. Public Library of Science 2014-03-17 /pmc/articles/PMC3956766/ /pubmed/24638071 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091891 Text en © 2014 Sanghera et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Sanghera, Sabina
Roberts, Tracy Elizabeth
Barton, Pelham
Frew, Emma
Daniels, Jane
Middleton, Lee
Gennard, Laura
Kai, Joe
Gupta, Janesh Kumar
Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System vs. Usual Medical Treatment for Menorrhagia: An Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial
title Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System vs. Usual Medical Treatment for Menorrhagia: An Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial
title_full Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System vs. Usual Medical Treatment for Menorrhagia: An Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial
title_fullStr Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System vs. Usual Medical Treatment for Menorrhagia: An Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial
title_full_unstemmed Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System vs. Usual Medical Treatment for Menorrhagia: An Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial
title_short Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System vs. Usual Medical Treatment for Menorrhagia: An Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial
title_sort levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system vs. usual medical treatment for menorrhagia: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956766/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24638071
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091891
work_keys_str_mv AT sangherasabina levonorgestrelreleasingintrauterinesystemvsusualmedicaltreatmentformenorrhagiaaneconomicevaluationalongsidearandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT robertstracyelizabeth levonorgestrelreleasingintrauterinesystemvsusualmedicaltreatmentformenorrhagiaaneconomicevaluationalongsidearandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT bartonpelham levonorgestrelreleasingintrauterinesystemvsusualmedicaltreatmentformenorrhagiaaneconomicevaluationalongsidearandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT frewemma levonorgestrelreleasingintrauterinesystemvsusualmedicaltreatmentformenorrhagiaaneconomicevaluationalongsidearandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT danielsjane levonorgestrelreleasingintrauterinesystemvsusualmedicaltreatmentformenorrhagiaaneconomicevaluationalongsidearandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT middletonlee levonorgestrelreleasingintrauterinesystemvsusualmedicaltreatmentformenorrhagiaaneconomicevaluationalongsidearandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT gennardlaura levonorgestrelreleasingintrauterinesystemvsusualmedicaltreatmentformenorrhagiaaneconomicevaluationalongsidearandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT kaijoe levonorgestrelreleasingintrauterinesystemvsusualmedicaltreatmentformenorrhagiaaneconomicevaluationalongsidearandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT guptajaneshkumar levonorgestrelreleasingintrauterinesystemvsusualmedicaltreatmentformenorrhagiaaneconomicevaluationalongsidearandomisedcontrolledtrial