Retrospective database analysis of clinical outcomes and costs for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding among women enrolled in US Medicaid programs

Risk of Hysterectomy After Endometrial Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the risk of hysterectomy after nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation in patients with heavy menstrual bleeding.

DATA SOURCES

The EMBASE, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane databases were searched for eligible articles from inception until June 13, 2022. We used combinations of search terms for endometrial ablation and hysterectomy.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Articles included in the review described the incidence of hysterectomy at a specific point in time after ablation with a minimum follow-up duration of 12 months.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

The literature search yielded a total of 3,022 hits. A total of 53 studies met our inclusion and exclusion criteria, including six retrospective studies, 24 randomized controlled trials, and 23 prospective studies. A total of 48,071 patients underwent endometrial ablation between 1992 and 2017. Follow-up duration varied between 12 and 120 months. Analyses per follow-up moment showed 4.3% hysterectomy rate at 12 months of follow-up (n=29 studies), 11.1% at 18 months (n=1 study), 8.0% at 24 months (n=11 studies), 10.2% at 36 months (n=12 studies), 7.6% at 48 months (n=2 studies), and 12.4% at 60 months (n=6 studies). Two studies reported a mean hysterectomy rate at 10 years after ablation of 21.3%. Minimal clinically relevant differences in hysterectomy rates were observed among the different study designs. Furthermore, we found no significant differences in hysterectomy rate among the different nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation devices.

CONCLUSION

The risk of hysterectomy after endometrial ablation seems to increase from 4.3% after 1 year to 12.4% after 5 years. Clinicians can use the results of this review to counsel patients about the 12% risk of hysterectomy 5 years after endometrial ablation.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42020156281.

Hysterectomy and Oophorectomy in Reproductive Age: A Cross-Sectional Study from a Tertiary Care Hospital

Introduction

Hysterectomy is a common surgical procedure in women, and oophorectomy may also be performed with the hysterectomy. The objective of this study was to identify clinical indications and pathological findings in hysterectomies, performed for gynecological causes, in women of reproductive age (15-49 years) and to determine if oophorectomy or ovarian conservation was performed with the hysterectomy as well as the pathological findings in the ovaries.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted in the department of Pathology at Dow Medical College in Karachi, Pakistan, from September 2017 to December 2018. Data were recorded from the pathology reports of hysterectomy specimens received in the department. Data of hysterectomies performed for gynecological causes in women of reproductive age group were selected and analyzed, using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, Washington) and SPSS version 20 (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York). Data of women more than 49 years and obstetric hysterectomies were excluded.

Results

Three hundred sixty-one hysterectomies were received; 157 of which were hysterectomies performed in women of reproductive age for gynecological reasons. The mean age of the women was 40.37 (± 5.47) years. Abnormal uterine bleeding was the most frequent clinical indication for hysterectomy in 81 (51.59%) women, followed by uterine prolapse in 29 (18.47%) and leiomyoma in 22 (14.01%). Common pathologies in the endometrium were endometritis in 14 (8.92%) and endometrial polyp in nine (5.73%). In the myometrium, leiomyoma was reported in 52 (33.12%) cases, adenomyosis in 37 (23.57%), and both leiomyoma and adenomyosis in 37 (23.57%) women. Uterine prolapse was histologically identified in 38 (24.20%) women. Oophorectomy was performed on 107 (68.15%) women, and out of these, 83 (77.59%) women's ovaries showed either normal histology or functional cysts. Ovarian pathologies reported were endometriosis, serous cystadenomas and oophoritis in five patients each (4.81%), ovarian serous carcinoma in three (2.88%), and mucinous carcinoma in one (0.96%) patient.

Conclusion

Abnormal uterine bleeding was the most common clinical indication for hysterectomy in women of reproductive age. The common pathologies in the hysterectomies were endometritis, endometrial polyp, leiomyoma, adenomyosis, and uterine prolapse. Most of the ovaries removed with the hysterectomy did not show any significant pathology, therefore, further studies in this direction are recommended for confirmation of this finding. Ovarian conservation may be considered in women undergoing hysterectomy for abnormal uterine bleeding or other uterine causes and with no radiological or surgical indication for oophorectomy.

Prevalence and knowledge of heavy menstrual bleeding among gynecology outpatients by scanning a WeChat QR Code

The aim of this study was to assess menstrual blood loss (MBL) and knowledge of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) among the gynecology outpatients at Peking University People’s Hospital, by scanning a WeChat (a social media application software developed by Tencent) QR Code using a mobile phone or tablet. This survey was conducted among outpatients who were treated at the Gynecology Department of Peking University People’s Hospital between September 2016 and November 2016. All participants filled up the questionnaires and scales through WeChat: general information questionnaire, Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart (PBAC), Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Quality-of-Life Scale (MMAS), and HMB knowledge questionnaire. Menstrual blood volume was assessed by the PBAC and self-assessment. Among the 1152 patients who filled out the survey, 77.4% (892/1152) had normal menstrual cycle (assessed by the patients), 15.6% (180/1152) patients described themselves as HMB, whereas the results from PBAC showed that 58.0% (668/1152) had HMB (PBAC ≥100). Among patients with PBAC ≥100, only 26.8% (179/668) patients reported HMB through self-assessment. Regarding its impact on daily life, the MMAS scores of HMB patients (PBAC ≥100) were significantly lower compared to those with normal blood loss (P<0.001). Regarding the awareness to HMB, 63.2% (728/1152) of the patients were not familiar with HMB. HMB is a common abnormal uterine bleeding and is frequently found among Chinese gynecology outpatients. HMB has major impacts on a woman’s quality of life, affecting both physical and emotional health domains. Since women generally have low levels of awareness and understanding of HMB, they could assess their blood loss using the PBAC, which they can forward to their health care provider using a mobile phone or tablet and the WeChat platform. This tool may be effortlessly used by the health care providers and patients to easily share HMB-related data.

Cost-Effectiveness of Global Endometrial Ablation vs. Hysterectomy for Treatment of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: US Commercial and Medicaid Payer Perspectives

Cost-effectiveness modeling studies of global endometrial ablation (GEA) for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) from a US perspective are lacking. The objective of this study was to model the cost-effectiveness of GEA vs. hysterectomy for treatment of AUB in the United States from both commercial and Medicaid payer perspectives. The study team developed a 1-, 3-, and 5-year semi-Markov decision-analytic model to simulate 2 hypothetical patient cohorts of women with AUB-1 treated with GEA and the other with hysterectomy. Clinical and economic data (including treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, direct costs, and productivity costs) came from analyses of commercial and Medicaid claims databases. Analysis results show that cost savings with simultaneous reduction in treatment complications and fewer days lost from work are achieved with GEA versus hysterectomy over almost all time horizons and under both the commercial payer and Medicaid perspectives. Cost-effectiveness metrics also favor GEA over hysterectomy from both the commercial payer and Medicaid payer perspectives-evidence strongly supporting the clinical-economic value about GEA versus hysterectomy. Results will interest clinicians, health care payers, and self-insured employers striving for cost-effective AUB treatments.

Cost effectiveness of endometrial ablation with the NovaSure(®) system versus other global ablation modalities and hysterectomy for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding: US commercial and Medicaid payer perspectives

OBJECTIVES

Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) interferes with physical, emotional, and social well-being, impacting the quality of life of more than 10 million women in the USA. Hysterectomy, the most common surgical treatment of AUB, has significant morbidity, low mortality, long recovery, and high associated health care costs. Global endometrial ablation (GEA) provides a surgical alternative with reduced morbidity, cost, and recovery time. The NovaSure(®) system utilizes unique radiofrequency impedance-based GEA technology. This study evaluated cost effectiveness of AUB treatment with NovaSure ablation versus other GEA modalities and versus hysterectomy from the US commercial and Medicaid payer perspectives.

METHODS

A health state transition (semi-Markov) model was developed using epidemiologic, clinical, and economic data from commercial and Medicaid claims database analyses, supplemented by published literature. Three hypothetical cohorts of women receiving AUB interventions were simulated over 1-, 3-, and 5-year horizons to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes for NovaSure, other GEA modalities, and hysterectomy.

RESULTS

Model analyses show lower costs for NovaSure-treated patients than for those treated with other GEA modalities or hysterectomy over all time frames under commercial payer and Medicaid perspectives. By Year 3, cost savings versus other GEA were $930 (commercial) and $3,000 (Medicaid); cost savings versus hysterectomy were $6,500 (commercial) and $8,900 (Medicaid). Coinciding with a 43%-71% reduction in need for re-ablation, there were 69%-88% fewer intervention/reintervention complications for NovaSure-treated patients versus other GEA modalities, and 82%-91% fewer versus hysterectomy. Furthermore, NovaSure-treated patients had fewer days of work absence and short-term disability. Cost-effectiveness metrics showed NovaSure treatment as economically dominant over other GEA modalities in all circumstances. With few exceptions, similar results were shown for NovaSure treatment versus hysterectomy.

CONCLUSION

Model results demonstrate strong financial favorability for NovaSure ablation versus other GEA modalities and hysterectomy from commercial and Medicaid payer perspectives. Results will interest clinicians, health care payers, and self-insured employers striving for cost-effective AUB treatments.