Sanghera Sabina, Roberts Tracy Elizabeth, Barton Pelham, Frew Emma, Daniels Jane, Middleton Lee, Gennard Laura, Kai Joe, Gupta Janesh Kumar
Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
School of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 17;9(3):e91891. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091891. eCollection 2014.
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.
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.
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.
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.
在一项规模最大的随机对照试验中,对左炔诺孕酮宫内节育器(“LNG-IUS”)与基层医疗中月经过多女性的常规药物治疗进行经济学评估;并使用两种替代的生活质量衡量指标比较成本效益结果。
2005年2月至2009年7月期间,来自英国63个中心的571名月经过多女性被随机分组。在与全科医生讨论其避孕需求或避免激素治疗的意愿后,女性被随机分配接受LNG-IUS植入或常规药物治疗。治疗方案在随机分组前确定。对于经济学评估,我们开发了一个具有24个月随访期的状态转换(马尔可夫)模型。模型结构依据试验女性的病程路径和临床专家意见构建。经济学评估采用英国国家医疗服务体系的视角,基于使用EQ-5D和SF-6D估计的每质量调整生命年(QALY)的增量成本这一结果。
使用EQ-5D时,LNG-IUS是治疗月经过多最具成本效益的疗法。LNG-IUS比常规药物治疗贵100英镑,但多产生0.07个QALY。与常规药物治疗相比,LNG-IUS的增量成本效益比为每增加一个QALY 1600英镑。使用SF-6D时,常规药物治疗是最具成本效益的疗法。常规药物治疗成本更低(便宜100英镑)且多产生0.002个QALY。
对生活质量的影响是月经过多治疗成功的主要指标。然而,最具成本效益的治疗方法因用于估计QALY的生活质量衡量指标而异。根据英国指南,LNG-IUS将是月经过多的推荐治疗方法。本研究表明,对月经过多结局的恰当评估至关重要。