Cost-effectiveness of two treatments for excessive menstrual bleeding in large uteri

Authors

  • Daniella de Batista Depes
  • Marcos Vinícius Maia da Mata
  • Ana Maria Gomes Pereira
  • João Alfredo Martins
  • Maita Poli de Araujo
  • Reginaldo Guedes Coelho Lopes
  • Zsuzsanna Jármy-Di Bella

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55905/oelv21n10-149

Keywords:

intrauterine devices, hysterectomy, uterine bleeding, efficacy, costs and cost analysis

Abstract

Introduction: Excessive menstrual bleeding is menstrual loss that interferes with the woman's quality of life, regardless of the absolute amount. Drug treatment is preferred to avoid surgical risks and preserve fertility. Anti-inflammatory, antifibrinolytic, oral contraceptive and progestogen are prescribed. These therapies result in 40 to 50% reduction in menstrual loss. The intrauterine levonorgestrel system (SIU-LNG) is the most effective long-term clinical treatment. On the other hand, hysterectomy is the most widely performed gynecological surgical procedure in the world and, although it offers complete control of symptoms, it is the most invasive, morbidly, irreversible and costly method of treatment. Objective: To compare the results and costs of clinical treatment with SIU-LNG and hysterectomy in women with large uteri and excessive menstrual bleeding. Method: It is a retrospective cohort study with 62 patients who performed two treatments: SIU-LNG insertion or videolaparoscopic hysterectomy (HVLP) and followed for four years. Results: The groups were homogeneous regarding age, parity, body mass index, schooling and uterine volume. SIU-LNG failed in 32.3% of patients, while the efficacy of hysterectomy was 100%. Complications occurred 22.6% after UIS insertion and 19.4% in the surgical group, the most serious. The cost of clinical treatment, including its complications, was nearly five times lower than the cost of surgical treatment with its complications. Conclusion: Compared to hysterectomy, treatment with SIU-LNG had lower efficacy, but simpler complications and lower costs.

References

Bofill Rodriguez M, Dias S, Jordan V, Lethaby A, Lensen SF, Wise MR., et al. Interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding; overview of Cochrane reviews and network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;5(5):CD013180. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013180.pub2.

Spencer JC, Louie M, Molder JK, Ellis V, Schiff LD, Toubia T, et al. Cost-effectiveness of treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(5):574.e1-574.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.07.024.

FEBRASGO. Uterine bleeding abnormal. São Paulo: Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations (FEBRASGO). Series Guidelines and Recommendations FEBRASGO. n. 7, 2017.

Lethaby AE, Cooke I, Rees M. Progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Oct 19;(4):CD002126. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002126.pub2. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;4:CD002126.

Cozza G, Pinto A, Giovanale V, Bianchi P, Guarino A, Marziani R, et al. Comparative effectiveness and impact on health-related quality of life of hysterectomy vs. levonorgestrel intrauterine system for abnormal uterine bleeding. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2017;21(9):2255-2260.

Adigüzel C, Seyfettinoğlu S, Aka Satar D, Arlier S, Eskimez E, Kaya F, et al. Turk J Med Sci. 2017;47(3):789-794. doi: 10.3906/sag-1512-115.

Davies J, Kadir RA. Heavy menstrual bleeding: An update on management. Thromb Res. 151 Suppl 1:S70-S77. doi: 10.1016/S0049-3848(17)30072-5.

Bitzer J, Heikinheimo O, Nelson AL, Calaf-Alsina J, Fraser IS. Medical management of heavy menstrual bleeding: a comprehensive review of the literature. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2015;70(2):115-30. doi: 10.1097/OGX.00000000000155.

Uhm S, Perriera L. Hormonal contraception as treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2014;57(4):694-717. doi: 10.1097/GRF.00000000000061.

Nayar J, Nair SS, George NA. Is LNG-IUS the One-Stop Answer to AUB? J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2018;68(4):253-257. doi: 10.1007/s13224-017-1050-z. Epub 2017 Sep 12

Miranda MT, Simó PA. Ethical aspects of the use of Mirena® in the treatment of severe menstrual bleeding. Cuadernos de Bioética. 2018;29(96):159-176

Hurskainen R, Teperi J, Rissanen P, Aalto AM, Grenman S, Kivelä A, et al. Clinical outcomes and costs with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or hysterectomy for treatment of menorrhagia: randomized trial 5-year follow-up. 2004;291(12):1456-63. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.12.1456.

Billow MR., El-Nashar SA. Management of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding with Emphasis on Alternatives to Hysterectomy Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2016;43(3):415-30. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2016.04.002.

Sabbioni L, Petraglia F, Luisi S. Non-contraceptive benefits of intrauterine levonorgestrel administration: why not? Gynecol Endocrinol. 2017;33(11):822-829. doi: 10.1080/09513590.2017.1334198.

Machado RB, de Souza IM, Beltrame A, Bernardes CR, Morimoto MS, Santana N. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system: its effect on the number of hysterectomies performed in perimenopausal women with uterine fibroids. Gynecol Endocrinol. 29(5):492-5. doi: 10.3109/09513590.2013.769517.

Louie M, Spencer J, Wheeler S, Ellis V, Toubia T, Schiff LD, et al. Comparison of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, hysterectomy, and endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding in a decision analysis model Int J Gynaecol Obstet 139(2):121-129. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12293.

Morgan DM, Kamdar NS, Dalton VK, Swenson CW, Moniz MH, Nallamothu B. Savings with expanding use of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device and fewer benign hysterectomies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(1):116-118.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.10.015.

Mauad Filho F, Beduschi AF, Meschino RAG, Mauad FM, Casanova MS, Ferreira AC. Ultrasonographic evaluation of uterine volume changes. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2001;23(3):175-179

Kotsiantis SB. Decision trees: a recent overview. Artif Intel Rev. 2013;39:261-283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-011-9272-4.

Pynnä K, Räsänen P, Roine RP, Vuorela P, Sintonen H. Where does the money go to? Cost analysis of gynecological patients with a benign condition. PloS One. 16(7):e0254124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254124.

Health Quality Ontario. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (52 mg) for idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding: a health technology assessment. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser 2016;16(18):1-119

Mercorio F, De Simone R, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Cerrota G, Bifulco G, Vanacore F, et al. Contraception. 2003;67(4):277-80. doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(02)00522-x.

Kim JY, No JH, Kim K, Kim YB, Jee BC, Lee JR, et al. Effect of myoma size on failure of thermal balloon ablation or levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system treatment in women with menorrhagia. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2013;56(1):36-40. doi: 10.5468/OGS.2013.56.1.36.

Park DS, Kim ML, Song T, Yun BS, Kim MK, Jun HS, et al. Clinical experiences of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in patients with large symptomatic adenomyosis. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 54(4):412-5. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2014.05.009.

Zapata LB, Whiteman MK, Tepper NK, Jamieson DJ, Intrauterine device use among women with uterine fibroids: a systematic review. Contraception. 2010;82(1):41-55.

Bahamondes MV, de Lima Y, Teich V, Bahamondes L, Monteiro I. Resources and procedures in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or hysterectomy in Brazil. Contraception. 2012;86(3):244-50. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2011.12.005.

Escobar-Paredes D, Peralta-Rivera R. Análisis de la costo-efectividad del Sistema intrauterino liberador de levonorgestrel, as an alternative to hysterectomias, in Latin American countries. Acta méd. costa ric [Internet]. 2019 Sep [cited 2023 Jan 30] ; 61(3 ): 94-98. Available from: http://www.scielo.sa.cr/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0001-60022019000300094&lng=en

Heliövaara-Peippo S, Hurskainen R, Teperi J, Aalto AM, Grénman S, Halmesmäki K, et al. Quality of life and costs of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or hysterectomy in the treatment of menorrhagia: a 10-year randomized controlled trial Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(6):535.e1-535.e14. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.08.041.

Laughton M, Patel NC, Dawoodbhoy FM, El-Ghrably S, Mahmud S. Comparison of Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System (LNG-IUS) against Laparoscopic Assisted Supracervical Hysterectomy (LASH) for menorrhagia treatment: an economic evaluation. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2021;50(10):102229. doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2021.102229.

Downloads

Published

2023-10-20

How to Cite

Depes, D. de B., da Mata, M. V. M., Pereira, A. M. G., Martins, J. A., de Araujo, M. P., Lopes, R. G. C., & Bella, Z. J.-D. (2023). Cost-effectiveness of two treatments for excessive menstrual bleeding in large uteri. OBSERVATÓRIO DE LA ECONOMÍA LATINOAMERICANA, 21(10), 17294–17308. https://doi.org/10.55905/oelv21n10-149

Issue

Section

Articles