Contraception · 2006
Cost-effectiveness of treatments for dysfunctional uterine bleeding in women who need contraception.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Blumenthal Paul D, Trussell James, Singh Rameet H, Guo Amy, Borenstein Jeffrey, Dubois Robert W, Liu Zhimei
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of oral contraceptives (OCs), the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and surgical management in treating dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB) in women not desiring additional children.
METHOD: A Markov model was constructed from the perspective of the health services payers for a 5-year period. Treatment costs, DUB treatment success rates and contraception success rates were obtained through a literature review.
RESULTS: In women not responding to an initial trial of OCs, surgical management was more effective than the LNG-IUS (95.5% vs. 92%) but at higher cost (US$4853 vs. US$2796 per woman). Among responders to OCs, continuing treatment with the LNG-IUS instead of OCs was more effective (92% vs. 90.4%) and less expensive (US$2796 vs. US$4711). For women naïve to medical therapy, the LNG-IUS and OCs had similar effectiveness, but cost for the LNG-IUS was lower (US$2796 vs. US$4895). In all scenarios, surgery followed if medical therapy failed; rates of primary method failure were 62.5% with OCs and 34% with the LNG-IUS at 12 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment strategies employing the LNG-IUS are the most cost-effective in managing DUB, regardless of whether a woman has previously tried OC therapy.
METHOD: A Markov model was constructed from the perspective of the health services payers for a 5-year period. Treatment costs, DUB treatment success rates and contraception success rates were obtained through a literature review.
RESULTS: In women not responding to an initial trial of OCs, surgical management was more effective than the LNG-IUS (95.5% vs. 92%) but at higher cost (US$4853 vs. US$2796 per woman). Among responders to OCs, continuing treatment with the LNG-IUS instead of OCs was more effective (92% vs. 90.4%) and less expensive (US$2796 vs. US$4711). For women naïve to medical therapy, the LNG-IUS and OCs had similar effectiveness, but cost for the LNG-IUS was lower (US$2796 vs. US$4895). In all scenarios, surgery followed if medical therapy failed; rates of primary method failure were 62.5% with OCs and 34% with the LNG-IUS at 12 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment strategies employing the LNG-IUS are the most cost-effective in managing DUB, regardless of whether a woman has previously tried OC therapy.