OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an adhesion prevention strategy compared to routine care, in which no adhesion prevention measures are taken, through a decision analysis model in the clinical setting of patients undergoing radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for Stage IB cervical cancer. METHODS: A decision analysis model compared two strategies to manage the risk of adhesion-related morbidity following radical hysterectomy for Stage IB cervical cancer: (1) routine care with no adhesion prevention measures, and (2) the intervention strategy with a HA-CMC anti-adhesion barrier. The cost-effectiveness of each strategy was evaluated from the perspective of society and that of a third party payer. RESULTS: From the perspective of society, the HA-CMC strategy had an overall cost per patient of $1932 and effectiveness of 7.901 QALYs and dominated the routine care strategy, which had a cost per patient of $3043 and effectiveness of 7.805 QALYs. From the perspective of a third party payer, the HA-CMC strategy had an overall cost per patient of $1247 and effectiveness of 7.987 QALYs and dominated the routine care strategy, which had a cost per patient of $1629 and effectiveness of 7.970 QALYs. A series of one-way sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model. CONCLUSIONS: Under a conservative set of clinical and economic assumptions, an adhesion prevention strategy utilizing a HA-CMC barrier in patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for Stage IB cervical cancer is cost-effective from both the perspective of society as a whole and that of a third party payer.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an adhesion prevention strategy compared to routine care, in which no adhesion prevention measures are taken, through a decision analysis model in the clinical setting of patients undergoing radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for Stage IB cervical cancer. METHODS: A decision analysis model compared two strategies to manage the risk of adhesion-related morbidity following radical hysterectomy for Stage IB cervical cancer: (1) routine care with no adhesion prevention measures, and (2) the intervention strategy with a HA-CMC anti-adhesion barrier. The cost-effectiveness of each strategy was evaluated from the perspective of society and that of a third party payer. RESULTS: From the perspective of society, the HA-CMC strategy had an overall cost per patient of $1932 and effectiveness of 7.901 QALYs and dominated the routine care strategy, which had a cost per patient of $3043 and effectiveness of 7.805 QALYs. From the perspective of a third party payer, the HA-CMC strategy had an overall cost per patient of $1247 and effectiveness of 7.987 QALYs and dominated the routine care strategy, which had a cost per patient of $1629 and effectiveness of 7.970 QALYs. A series of one-way sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model. CONCLUSIONS: Under a conservative set of clinical and economic assumptions, an adhesion prevention strategy utilizing a HA-CMC barrier in patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for Stage IB cervical cancer is cost-effective from both the perspective of society as a whole and that of a third party payer.
Authors: Jan Bosteels; Steven Weyers; Thomas M D'Hooghe; Helen Torrance; Frank J Broekmans; Su Jen Chua; Ben Willem J Mol Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-11-27