OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the following three treatments of uterine fibroids in a population of premenopausal women who wish to preserve their uteri: myomectomy, magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) and uterine artery embolization (UAE). MATERIALS & METHODS: A decision analytic Markov model was constructed. Cost-effectiveness was calculated in terms of US$ per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) over 5 years. Two types of costs were calculated: direct costs only, and the sum of direct and indirect (productivity) costs. Women in the hypothetical cohort were assessed for treatment type eligibility, were treated based on eligibility, and experienced adequate or inadequate symptom relief. Additional treatment (myomectomy) occurred for inadequate symptom relief or recurrence. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate uncertainty in the model parameters. RESULTS: In the base case, myomectomy, MRgFUS and UAE had the following combinations of mean cost and mean QALYs, respectively: US$15,459, 3.957; US$15,274, 3.953; and US$18,653, 3.943. When incorporating productivity costs, MRgFUS incurred a mean cost of US$21,232; myomectomy US$22,599; and UAE US$22,819. Using probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and excluding productivity costs, myomectomy was cost effective at almost every decision threshold. Using PSA and incorporating productivity costs, myomectomy was cost effective at decision thresholds above US$105,000/QALY; MRgFUS was cost effective between US$30,000 and US$105,000/QALY; and UAE was cost effective below US$30,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: Myomectomy, MRgFUS, and UAE were similarly effective in terms of QALYs gained. Depending on assumptions about costs and willingness to pay for additional QALYs, all three treatments can be deemed cost effective in a 5-year time frame.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the following three treatments of uterine fibroids in a population of premenopausal women who wish to preserve their uteri: myomectomy, magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) and uterine artery embolization (UAE). MATERIALS & METHODS: A decision analytic Markov model was constructed. Cost-effectiveness was calculated in terms of US$ per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) over 5 years. Two types of costs were calculated: direct costs only, and the sum of direct and indirect (productivity) costs. Women in the hypothetical cohort were assessed for treatment type eligibility, were treated based on eligibility, and experienced adequate or inadequate symptom relief. Additional treatment (myomectomy) occurred for inadequate symptom relief or recurrence. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate uncertainty in the model parameters. RESULTS: In the base case, myomectomy, MRgFUS and UAE had the following combinations of mean cost and mean QALYs, respectively: US$15,459, 3.957; US$15,274, 3.953; and US$18,653, 3.943. When incorporating productivity costs, MRgFUS incurred a mean cost of US$21,232; myomectomy US$22,599; and UAE US$22,819. Using probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and excluding productivity costs, myomectomy was cost effective at almost every decision threshold. Using PSA and incorporating productivity costs, myomectomy was cost effective at decision thresholds above US$105,000/QALY; MRgFUS was cost effective between US$30,000 and US$105,000/QALY; and UAE was cost effective below US$30,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: Myomectomy, MRgFUS, and UAE were similarly effective in terms of QALYs gained. Depending on assumptions about costs and willingness to pay for additional QALYs, all three treatments can be deemed cost effective in a 5-year time frame.
Authors: Milton C Weinstein; Bernie O'Brien; John Hornberger; Joseph Jackson; Magnus Johannesson; Chris McCabe; Bryan R Luce Journal: Value Health Date: 2003 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Andrew H Briggs; Milton C Weinstein; Elisabeth A L Fenwick; Jonathan Karnon; Mark J Sculpher; A David Paltiel Journal: Value Health Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Michael S Broder; Scott Goodwin; Gary Chen; Linda J Tang; Mary M Costantino; Michael H Nguyen; Tugce N Yegul; Heike Erberich Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Donna Day Baird; David B Dunson; Michael C Hill; Deborah Cousins; Joel M Schectman Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Jane Daniels; Lee J Middleton; Versha Cheed; William McKinnon; Dikshyanta Rana; Fusun Sirkeci; Isaac Manyonda; Anna-Maria Belli; Mary Ann Lumsden; Jonathan Moss; Olivia Wu; Klim McPherson Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 4.106
Authors: Elizabeth Brooks; Linda Mihalov; Dipak Delvadia; Joseph Hudgens; Saifuddin Mama; Gretchen E Makai; Matt W Yuen; Carter A Little; Robert L Bauserman; April Zambelli-Weiner; David J Levine Journal: Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2020-01-08
Authors: L Ferrario; E Garagiola; C Gerardi; G Bellavia; S Colombo; C Ticca; C Rossetti; M Ciboldi; M Meroni; A Vanzulli; A Rampoldi; T Bignardi; F Arrigoni; E Porazzi; E Foglia Journal: Health Econ Rev Date: 2022-03-18
Authors: Kimberley J Anneveldt; Ingrid M Nijholt; Joke M Schutte; Jeroen R Dijkstra; Geert W J Frederix; Erwin Ista; Inez M Verpalen; Sebastiaan Veersema; Judith A F Huirne; Wouter J K Hehenkamp; Martijn F Boomsma Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2021-11-24
Authors: Matthew R Davis; Ahmed M Soliman; Jane Castelli-Haley; Michael C Snabes; Eric S Surrey Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2018-08-07 Impact factor: 2.681