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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Sabina Sanghera, Tracy Elizabeth Roberts, Pelham Barton, Emma Frew, Jane Daniels, Lee Middleton, Laura Gennard, Joe Kai, Janesh Kumar Gupta
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2014-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3956766?pdf=render
id doaj-2085145d06b14fe891a3d97999b9a785
record_format Article
spelling doaj-2085145d06b14fe891a3d97999b9a7852020-11-25T01:52:45ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032014-01-0193e9189110.1371/journal.pone.0091891Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system vs. usual medical treatment for menorrhagia: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.Sabina SangheraTracy Elizabeth RobertsPelham BartonEmma FrewJane DanielsLee MiddletonLaura GennardJoe KaiJanesh Kumar GuptaOBJECTIVE: 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.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3956766?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Sabina Sanghera
Tracy Elizabeth Roberts
Pelham Barton
Emma Frew
Jane Daniels
Lee Middleton
Laura Gennard
Joe Kai
Janesh Kumar Gupta
spellingShingle Sabina Sanghera
Tracy Elizabeth Roberts
Pelham Barton
Emma Frew
Jane Daniels
Lee Middleton
Laura Gennard
Joe Kai
Janesh Kumar Gupta
Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system vs. usual medical treatment for menorrhagia: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Sabina Sanghera
Tracy Elizabeth Roberts
Pelham Barton
Emma Frew
Jane Daniels
Lee Middleton
Laura Gennard
Joe Kai
Janesh Kumar Gupta
author_sort Sabina Sanghera
title 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_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_sort levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system vs. usual medical treatment for menorrhagia: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2014-01-01
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.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3956766?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT sabinasanghera levonorgestrelreleasingintrauterinesystemvsusualmedicaltreatmentformenorrhagiaaneconomicevaluationalongsidearandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT tracyelizabethroberts levonorgestrelreleasingintrauterinesystemvsusualmedicaltreatmentformenorrhagiaaneconomicevaluationalongsidearandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT pelhambarton levonorgestrelreleasingintrauterinesystemvsusualmedicaltreatmentformenorrhagiaaneconomicevaluationalongsidearandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT emmafrew levonorgestrelreleasingintrauterinesystemvsusualmedicaltreatmentformenorrhagiaaneconomicevaluationalongsidearandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT janedaniels levonorgestrelreleasingintrauterinesystemvsusualmedicaltreatmentformenorrhagiaaneconomicevaluationalongsidearandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT leemiddleton levonorgestrelreleasingintrauterinesystemvsusualmedicaltreatmentformenorrhagiaaneconomicevaluationalongsidearandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT lauragennard levonorgestrelreleasingintrauterinesystemvsusualmedicaltreatmentformenorrhagiaaneconomicevaluationalongsidearandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT joekai levonorgestrelreleasingintrauterinesystemvsusualmedicaltreatmentformenorrhagiaaneconomicevaluationalongsidearandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT janeshkumargupta levonorgestrelreleasingintrauterinesystemvsusualmedicaltreatmentformenorrhagiaaneconomicevaluationalongsidearandomisedcontrolledtrial
_version_ 1724993306399604736