Hysterectomy, endometrial ablation and Mirena® for heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis

Perimenopausal women's voices: How does their period at the end of reproductive life affect wellbeing?

OBJECTIVE

To explore perimenopausal women's feelings towards their periods, the impact on their wellbeing and how we can support them.

STUDY DESIGN

Participants were recruited for focus groups through social media advertisements. In 6 online focus groups, 31 perimenopausal women aged 40-55 living in the UK were asked 5 questions relating to periods and perimenopause, support and education.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Content analysis.

RESULTS

When asked How do you feel about having a period? The participants often related back to the stress of menarche and said their period negatively impacted their wellbeing their whole lives. During perimenopause, their periods had become unpredictable, heavy, and a debilitating disruption to their lives. The women desired support at work through policy, and from family and friends. They believed that educating girls and boys during school was the best place to start, but that education through work and community groups was also needed. They felt healthcare professionals should have mandatory training regarding women's health issues and menopause.

CONCLUSION

The study highlights the impact of menstrual experiences on the wellbeing of perimenopausal women, emphasising the need for improved menstrual education from an early age. Comprehensive menstrual education in schools involving both genders to enable informed decision-making and improved training for healthcare professionals are recommended. Support networks for perimenopausal women will promote better quality of life for women as they go through their perimenopause journey.

Rates of medical or surgical treatment for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: the ECLIPSE trial 10-year observational follow-up study

Background

Heavy menstrual bleeding is a common problem that can significantly affect women's lives until menopause. There is a lack of evidence on longer-term outcomes after seeking health care and treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding.

Objectives

To assess the continuation rates of medical treatments and the rates of ablative and surgical interventions among women who had participated in the ECLIPSE trial (ISRCTN86566246) 10 years after initial management for heavy menstrual bleeding in primary care. To explore experiences of heavy menstrual bleeding and influences on treatment for women.

Design

This was a prospective observational cohort study, with a parallel qualitative study.

Setting

Primary care.

Participants

A total of 206 women with heavy menstrual bleeding who had participated in the ECLIPSE trial consented to providing outcome data via a questionnaire approximately 10 years after original randomisation. Their mean age at follow-up was 54 years (standard deviation 5 years). A purposeful sample of 36 women also participated in semistructured qualitative interviews.

Interventions

The ECLIPSE trial randomised participants to either the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (52 mg) or the usual medical treatment (oral tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen-progestogen or progesterone alone, chosen as clinically appropriate by general practitioners and women). Women could subsequently swap or cease their allocated treatment.

Main outcome measures

The main outcome measures were rates of ablative and surgical treatments; the rate of continuation of medical treatments; and quality of life using the Short Form questionnaire-36 items and EuroQol-5 Dimensions; women's experiences of heavy menstrual bleeding; and the influences on their decisions around treatment.

Results

Over the 10-year follow-up period, 60 out of 206 (29%) women had received a surgical intervention [hysterectomy, n = 34 (17%); endometrial ablation, n = 26 (13%)]. Between 5 and 10 years post trial intervention, 89 women (43%) had ceased all medical treatments and 88 (43%) were using the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system alone or in combination with other oral treatments. More women in the usual medical treatment group had also used the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system than women in the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group. Fifty-six women (28%) used the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system at 10 years. There was no statistically significant difference in generic quality-of-life scores between the two original trial groups, although small improvements in the majority of domains were seen in both groups across time. Women reported wide-ranging impacts on their quality of life and normalisation of their heavy menstrual bleeding experience as a result of the taboo around menstruation. Women's treatment decisions and experiences were influenced by the perceived quality of health-care interactions with clinicians and their climacteric status.

Limitations

Fewer than half of the original 571 participants participated; however, the cohort was clinically and demographically representative of the original trial population.

Conclusions

Medical treatments for women with heavy menstrual bleeding can be initiated in primary care, with low rates of surgical intervention and improvement in quality of life observed 10 years later. Clinicians should be aware of the considerable challenges that women with heavy menstrual bleeding experience at presentation and subsequently over time, and the importance and value to women of patient-centred communication in this context.

Future work

Any further evaluation of treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding should include long-term evaluation of outcomes and adherence.

Trial registration

The original ECLIPSE trial was registered as ISRCTN86566246.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Comparison of Bleeding Pattern and Quality of Life Before and After the Insertion of a Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System for Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: A Seven-Year Review

Background This study aimed to examine the role of a levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) regarding improvements in bleeding patterns and quality of life (QOL) and determine the reason for its failure or withdrawal from treatment in some patients. Methodology This retrospective study was conducted in a tertiary care center in eastern India. A seven-year assessment, with both qualitative and quantitative assessments, of the effect of LNG-IUS in women with HMB was performed using the Menorrhagia Multiattribute Scale (MMAS) and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (MOS SF-36) score as a tool to assess the QOL, and the pictorial bleeding assessment chart (PBAC) to assess bleeding patterns. The study population was divided into the following four groups based on duration: three months to one year, one to two years, two to three years, and more than years. The continuation, expulsion, and hysterectomy rates were evaluated. Results The mean MMAS and MOS SF-36 scores increased significantly (p < 0.05) from 36.73 ± 20.40 to 93.72 ± 14.62 and 35.33 ± 6.73 to 90.54 ± 15.89, respectively. The mean PBAC score decreased from 176.36 ± 79.85 to 32.19 ± 63.87. In total, 348 women (94.25%) continued the LNG-IUS, and 3.44% had uncontrolled menorrhagia. Furthermore, at the end of seven years, the expulsion rate was 2.28% due to adenomyosis and pelvic inflammatory disease, and the hysterectomy rate was 5.75%. In addition, 45.97% and 48.27% of the participants had amenorrhea and hypomenorrhea, respectively. Conclusions LNG-IUS improves bleeding and QOL in women with HMB. In addition, it requires less skill and is a non-invasive and nonsurgical option, which should be considered first.

Improving diagnostic antimicrobial stewardship in respiratory tract infections: a protocol for a scoping review investigating point-of-care testing programmes in community pharmacy

INTRODUCTION

Diagnostic uncertainty regarding the cause of respiratory tract infections (RTIs) multiplies the problem of unnecessary use of antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance in primary care. Point-of-care testing (POCT) programmes have been recognised as a potential stewardship strategy to optimise antimicrobial use in primary care. There is a need for greater understanding of community pharmacy-based POCT programmes in reducing the unnecessary use of antimicrobials in patients with RTIs. This review systematically maps out evidence around the effectiveness, feasibility and implementation challenges of POCT programmes in community pharmacy to improve safe antimicrobial use in RTIs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist and the Arksey and O'Malley methodology framework will guide the reporting of this review. We will systematically review studies with either randomised controlled trial, non-randomised controlled trial, before-after study, observational study or pilot feasibility study design. Medline, Emcare, PubMed, Health Technology Assessment, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar databases will be used to search for articles. Three reviewers will independently screen, review and select studies with POCT programmes involving community pharmacists for antimicrobial stewardship in RTIs. Summary statistics and random effects model, if data permit, will be used to summarise the effectiveness, feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the POCT programme. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research will capture POCT implementation drivers.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review study does not require research ethics approval. Findings will be disseminated through national and international conferences, seminars and publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether a previously performed endometrial ablation is associated with the development and diagnosis of endometrial cancer.

METHODS

First, a systematic review was performed of the articles reporting the incidence of endometrial cancer in patients treated with endometrial ablation. Second, a systematic review was performed to identify all individual cases of endometrial cancer after ablation to evaluate presenting symptoms, diagnostic work-up, potential risk factors, and the type and stage of the endometrial cancer. A systematic search was performed, using Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases, from inception through February 24, 2022.

RESULTS

Based on 11 included studies, the incidence of endometrial cancer in a population of 29 102 patients with a prior endometrial ablation ranged from 0.0% to 1.6%.A total of 38 cases of endometrial cancer after ablation were identified. In 71% of cases (17 of 24 cases), vaginal bleeding was the first presenting symptom. With transvaginal ultrasound it was possible to identify and measure the endometrial thickness in eight cases. Endometrium sampling was successful in 16 of 18 described cases (89%). In 18 of 20 cases (90%) pathologic examination showed early-stage endometrioid adenocarcinoma (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I).

CONCLUSION

Previous endometrial ablation is not associated with the development of endometrial cancer. Diagnostic work-up is not impeded by previous endometrial ablation. In addition, endometrial cancers after endometrial ablation are not detected at an advanced stage.

Crosstalk between Extracellular Matrix Stiffness and ROS Drives Endometrial Repair via the HIF-1α/YAP Axis during Menstruation

Although the menstrual cycle driven by sex steroid hormones is an uncomplicated physiological process, it is important for female health, fertility and regenerative biology. However, our understanding of this unique type of tissue homeostasis remains unclear. Here, we examined the biological effects of mechanical force by evaluating the changing trend of extracellular matrix (ECM) stiffness, and the results suggested that ECM stiffness was reduced and that breaking of mechanotransduction delayed endometrium repair in a mouse model of simulated menses. We constructed an ECM stiffness interference model in vitro to explain the mechanical force conduction mechanism during endometrial regeneration. We discovered that ECM stiffness increased the expression and nuclear transfer of YAP, which improved the creation of a microenvironment, in a manner that induced proliferation and angiogenesis for endometrial repair by activating YAP. In addition, we observed that physiological endometrial hypoxia occurs during the menstrual cycle and that the expression of HIF-1α was increased. Mechanistically, in addition to the classical F-actin/YAP pathway, we also found that the ROS/HIF-1α/YAP axis was involved in the transmission of mechanical signals. This study provides novel insights into the essential menstrual cycle and presents an effective, nonhormonal treatment for menstrual disorders.

Uterine bleeding: how understanding endometrial physiology underpins menstrual health

Menstruation is a physiological process that is typically uncomplicated. However, up to one third of women globally will be affected by abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) at some point in their reproductive years. Menstruation (that is, endometrial shedding) is a fine balance between proliferation, decidualization, inflammation, hypoxia, apoptosis, haemostasis, vasoconstriction and, finally, repair and regeneration. An imbalance in any one of these processes can lead to the abnormal endometrial phenotype of AUB. Poor menstrual health has a negative impact on a person's physical, mental, social, emotional and financial well-being. On a global scale, iron deficiency and iron deficiency anaemia are closely linked with AUB, and are often under-reported and under-recognized. The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics have produced standardized terminology and a classification system for the causes of AUB. This standardization will facilitate future research endeavours, diagnosis and clinical management. In a field where no new medications have been developed for over 20 years, emerging technologies are paving the way for a deeper understanding of the biology of the endometrium in health and disease, as well as opening up novel diagnostic and management avenues.

The Menstrual Endometrium: From Physiology to Future Treatments

Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) is experienced by up to a third of women of reproductive age. It can cause anaemia and often results in decreased quality of life. A range of medical and surgical treatments are available but are associated with side effects and variable effectiveness. To improve the lives of those suffering from menstrual disorders, delineation of endometrial physiology is required. This allows an increased understanding of how this physiology may be disturbed, leading to uterine pathologies. In this way, more specific preventative and therapeutic strategies may be developed to personalise management of this common symptom. In this review, the impact of AUB globally is outlined, alongside the urgent clinical need for improved medical treatments. Current knowledge of endometrial physiology at menstruation is discussed, focusing on endocrine regulation of menstruation and local endometrial inflammation, tissue breakdown, hypoxia and endometrial repair. The contribution of the specialised endometrial vasculature and coagulation system during menstruation is highlighted. What is known regarding aberrations in endometrial physiology that result in AUB is discussed, with a focus on endometrial disorders (AUB-E) and adenomyosis (AUB-A). Gaps in existing knowledge and areas for future research are signposted throughout, with a focus on potential translational benefits for those experiencing abnormal uterine bleeding. Personalisation of treatment strategies for menstrual disorders is then examined, considering genetic, environmental and demographic characteristics of individuals to optimise their clinical management. Finally, an ideal model of future management of AUB is proposed. This would involve targeted diagnosis of specific endometrial aberrations in individuals, in the context of holistic medicine and with due consideration of personal circumstances and preferences.

Re-intervention and patient satisfaction rates following office radiofrequency endometrial ablation: a comparative retrospective study of 408 cases

This retrospective study assessed the efficacy and long-term satisfaction of radiofrequency endometrial ablation outside the context of clinical trials in 408 women, and compared the outcome between office-setting (211, 52%) and day-case procedures under general anaesthetics (197, 48%). The Kaplan Meir time-to-event analysis showed that the cumulative number of women undergoing surgical re-intervention was 32 with a probability of 9.4% (95% CI: 6.3 - 12.5%) at 2-years, and 45 with a probability of 14.5% (95% CI: 10.3 - 18.2%) at 5-years. There was no statistically significant difference in the re-intervention rate between office and day-case groups (HR = 0.7, 95% CI: 0.68 - 3.1, p = .3). The satisfaction rate, measured by Visual Analogue Scale, was not statistically different (p = .5) between office (109; 80.7%) and day-case (96; 82.8%) groups. This study showed lower surgical re-intervention rate than previously reported in observational studies, and high rates of long-term women satisfaction. The outcomes were similar in office and day-case settings.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? Previous studies have shown the safety and effectiveness of radiofrequency endometrial ablation for treating heavy periods. However, studies investigating it, outside clinical trials, either included a small sample size, a short-term follow-up, poor reporting so that it is impossible to judge whether some women underwent re-intervention in another centre, failed to discriminate in analysis between second-generation techniques, or assessed only short-term satisfaction.What do the results of this study add? This is the largest series reported from a single centre and the first study reporting long-term satisfaction in women, outside clinical trials. Surgical re-intervention was used as the primary outcome measure which is an objective measure rather than the change in the monthly flow which is rather subjective. More importantly, the study records the similarity, in the outcome and women's satisfaction rate, between office and day-case procedures under general anaesthetics.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Endometrial ablation service is widely implemented in office-setting in the UK. We hope the result of this study encourages implementation on a larger scale in office across centres in the world with its multiple advantages both to women and service alike.

Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic hysterectomy in first-degree female relatives with Lynch syndrome of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer in the United States: a microsimulation study

Background

To evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of prophylactic hysterectomy (PH) in women with Lynch syndrome (LS).

Methods

We developed a microsimulation model incorporating the natural history for the development of hyperplasia with and without atypia into endometrial cancer (EC) based on the MISCAN‐framework. We simulated women identified as first‐degree relatives (FDR) with LS of colorectal cancer patients after universal testing for LS. We estimated costs and benefits of offering this cohort PH, accounting for reduced quality of life after PH and for having EC. Three minimum ages (30/35/40) and three maximum ages (70/75/80) were compared to no PH.

Results

In the absence of PH, the estimated number of EC cases was 300 per 1,000 women with LS. Total associated costs for treatment of EC were $5.9 million. Offering PH to FDRs aged 40–80 years was considered optimal. This strategy reduced the number of endometrial cancer cases to 5.4 (−98%), resulting in 516 quality‐adjusted life years (QALY) gained and increasing the costs (treatment of endometrial cancer and PH) to $15.0 million (+154%) per 1,000 women. PH from earlier ages was more costly and resulted in fewer QALYs, although this finding was sensitive to disutility for PH.

Conclusions

Offering PH to 40‐ to 80‐year‐old women with LS is expected to add 0.5 QALY per person at acceptable costs. Women may decide to have PH at a younger age, depending on their individual disutility for PH and premature menopause.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Genotype-Specific Surveillance and Preventive Strategies for Gynecologic Cancers Among Women With Lynch Syndrome

IMPORTANCE

With the expansion of multigene testing for cancer susceptibility, Lynch syndrome (LS) has become more readily identified among women. The condition is caused by germline pathogenic variants in DNA mismatch repair genes (ie, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) and is associated with high but variable risks of endometrial and ovarian cancers based on genotype. However, current guidelines on preventive strategies are not specific to genotypes.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of genotype-specific surveillance and preventive strategies for LS-associated gynecologic cancers, including a novel, risk-reducing surgical approach associated with decreased early surgically induced menopause.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation developed a cohort-level Markov simulation model of the natural history of LS-associated gynecologic cancer for each gene, among women from ages 25 to 75 years or until death from a health care perspective. Age was varied at hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (hyst-BSO) and at surveillance initiation, and a 2-stage surgical approach (ie, hysterectomy and salpingectomy at age 40 years and delayed oophorectomy at age 50 years [hyst-BS]) was included. Extensive 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

INTERVENTIONS

Hyst-BSO at ages 35 years, 40 years, or 50 years with or without annual surveillance beginning at age 30 years or 35 years or hyst-BS at age 40 years with oophorectomy delayed until age 50 years.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between management strategies within an efficiency frontier.

RESULTS

For women with MLH1 and MSH6 variants, the optimal strategy was the 2-stage approach, with respective ICERs of $33 269 and $20 008 compared with hyst-BSO at age 40 years. Despite being cost-effective, the 2-stage approach was associated with increased cancer incidence and mortality compared with hyst-BSO at age 40 years for individuals with MLH1 variants (incidence: 7.76% vs 3.84%; mortality: 5.74% vs 2.55%) and those with MSH6 variants (incidence: 7.24% vs 4.52%; mortality: 5.22% vs 2.97%). Hyst-BSO at age 40 years was optimal for individuals with MSH2 variants, with an ICER of $5180 compared with hyst-BSO at age 35 years, and was associated with 4.42% cancer incidence and 2.97% cancer mortality. For individuals with PMS2 variants, hyst-BSO at age 50 years was optimal and all other strategies were dominated; hyst-BSO at age 50 years was associated with an estimated cancer incidence of 0.68% and cancer mortality of 0.29%.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that gene-specific preventive strategies for gynecologic cancers in LS may be warranted and support hyst-BSO at age 40 years for individuals with MSH2 variants. For individuals with MLH1 and MSH6 variants, these findings suggest that a novel 2-stage surgical approach with delayed oophorectomy may be an alternative to hyst-BSO at age 40 years to avoid early menopause, and for individuals with PMS2 variants, the findings suggest that hyst-BSO may be delayed until age 50 years.

The levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Objective

To evaluate the costs and non‐inferiority of a strategy starting with the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG‐IUS) compared with endometrial ablation (EA) in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).

Design

Cost‐effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective alongside a multicentre randomised non‐inferiority trial.

Setting

General practices and gynaecology departments in the Netherlands.

Population

In all, 270 women with HMB, aged ≥34 years old, without intracavitary pathology or wish for a future child.

Methods

Randomisation to a strategy starting with the LNG‐IUS (n = 132) or EA (n = 138). The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio was estimated.

Main outcome measures

Direct medical costs and (in)direct non‐medical costs were calculated. The primary outcome was menstrual blood loss after 24 months, measured with the mean Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart (PBAC)‐score (non‐inferiority margin 25 points). A secondary outcome was successful blood loss reduction (PBAC‐score ≤75 points).

Results

Total costs per patient were €2,285 in the LNG‐IUS strategy and €3,465 in the EA strategy (difference: €1,180). At 24 months, mean PBAC‐scores were 64.8 in the LNG‐IUS group (n = 115) and 14.2 in the EA group (n = 132); difference 50.5 points (95% CI 4.3–96.7). In the LNG‐IUS group, 87% of women had a PBAC‐score ≤75 points versus 94% in the EA group (relative risk [RR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.85–1.01). The ICER was €23 (95% CI €5–111) per PBAC‐point.

Conclusions

A strategy starting with the LNG‐IUS was cheaper than starting with EA, but non‐inferiority could not be demonstrated. The LNG‐IUS is reversible and less invasive and can be a cost‐effective treatment option, depending on the success rate women are willing to accept.

Tweetable abstract

Treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding starting with LNG‐IUS is cheaper but slightly less effective than endometrial ablation.

Treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding starting with LNG‐IUS is cheaper but slightly less effective than endometrial ablation.

Low dose dexamethasone as treatment for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: A response-adaptive randomised placebo-controlled dose-finding parallel group trial (DexFEM)

BACKGROUND

The symptom of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) diminishes quality-of-life for many mid-age women and imposes substantial societal burden. We investigated our hypothesis that HMB reflects impaired endometrial vasoconstriction due to endometrial glucocorticoid deficiency. Does reversing this deficiency, by short-term luteal-phase treatment with exogenous glucocorticoid (dexamethasone), ameliorate HMB?

METHODS

In our Bayesian response-adaptive parallel-group placebo-controlled randomised trial, five pre-planned interim analyses used primary outcome data to adjust randomisation probabilities to favour doses providing most dose-response information. Participants with HMB, recruited from Lothian (Scotland) NHS clinics and via community invitations/advertisements, were aged over 18 years; reported regular 21-42 day menstrual cycles; and had measured menstrual blood loss (MBL) averaging ≥ 50 mL over two screening periods. Identically encapsulated placebo, or one of six Dexamethasone doses (0·2 mg, 0·4 mg, 0·5 mg, 0·6 mg, 0·75 mg, 0·9 mg), were taken orally twice-daily over five days in the mid-luteal phase of three menstrual cycles. Participants, investigators, and those measuring outcomes were masked to group assignment. Primary outcome, change in average MBL from screening to 'treatment', was analysed by allocated treatment, for all with data.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01769820; EudractCT 2012-003,405-98 FINDINGS: Recruitment lasted 29/01/2014 to 25/09/2017; 176 were screened, 107 randomised and 97 provided primary outcome data (n = 24,5,9,21,8,14,16 in the seven arms, placebo to 1·8 mg total daily active dose). In Bayesian normal dynamic linear modelling, 1·8 mg dexamethasone daily showed a 25 mL greater reduction in MBL from screening, than placebo (95% credible interval 1 to 49 mL), and probability 0·98 of benefit over placebo. Adverse events were reported by 75% (58/77) receiving dexamethasone, 58% (15/26) taking placebo. Three serious adverse events occurred, two during screening, one in a placebo participant. No woman withdrew due to adverse effects.

INTERPRETATION

Our adaptive trial in HMB showed that dexamethasone 1·8 mg daily reduced menstrual blood loss. The role of dexamethasone in HMB management deserves further investigation.

FUNDING

UK MRC DCS/DPFS grant MR/J003611/1.

The health-related quality of life of patients with a benign gynecological condition: a 2-year follow-up

Aim: To assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with benign gynecological disorders. Materials & methods: Prospective 2-year follow-up with the 15D HRQoL-instrument of 311 women treated in Helsinki-area hospitals in 2012-2013. Results: The initially impaired HRQoL regarding excretion, discomfort and symptoms, and vitality and sexual activity improved after treatment. However, only sexual activity reached similar levels as in the general population. Treatment of endometriosis, fibroids and polyps resulted in best and that of unspecific pelvic pain and bleeding disorders in worst HRQoL scores. Results were independent of hospital size. Conclusion: The impaired HRQoL dimensions were improved by treatment but HRQoL still remained poorer than in the general female population. Treatment of unspecific pelvic pain and bleeding disorders needs further evaluation.

Endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is common in otherwise healthy women of reproductive age, and can affect physical health and quality of life. Surgery is usually a second-line treatment of HMB. Endometrial resection/ablation (EA/ER) to remove or ablate the endometrium is less invasive than hysterectomy. Hysterectomy is the definitive treatment and can be via open (laparotomy) approach, or via minimally invasive approaches (vaginally or laparoscopically). Each approach has its own advantages and risk profile.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of endometrial resection or ablation versus different routes of hysterectomy (open, minimally invasive hysterectomy, or unspecified route) for the treatment of HMB.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO (July 2020), and reference lists, grey literature and trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared techniques of endometrial resection/ablation with hysterectomy (by any technique) for the treatment of HMB in premenopausal women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs (1966 participants) comparing EA/ER to hysterectomy (open (abdominal), minimally invasive (laparoscopic or vaginal), or unspecified (or at surgeon's discretion) route of hysterectomy). The results were rated as moderate-, low- and very low-certainty evidence. Endometrial resection/ablation versus open hysterectomy We found two trials. Women having EA/ER are probably less likely to perceive an improvement in HMB compared to women having open hysterectomy (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.95; 2 studies, 247 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably have a 13% risk of requiring further surgery for treatment failure (compared to 0 on the open hysterectomy group; 2 studies, 247 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Both treatments probably lead to similar quality of life at two years (mean difference (MD) -5.30, 95% CI -11.90 to 1.30; 1 study, 155 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and satisfaction rate at one year (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.00; 1 study, 194 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in serious adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.32 to 5.20; 2 studies, 247 women; low-certainty evidence). EA/ER probably reduces time to return to normal activity compared to open hysterectomy (MD -21.00 days, 95% CI -24.78 to -17.22; 1 study, 197 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Endometrial resection/ablation versus minimally invasive hysterectomy We found five trials. The proportion of women with perception of improvement in HMB at two years may be similar between groups (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04; 1 study, 79 women; low-certainty evidence). Blood loss may be higher in the EA/ER group when assessed using the Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart (MD 44.00, 95% CI 36.09 to 51.91; 1 study, 68 women; low-certainty evidence). Quality of life is probably lower in the EA/ER group compared to the minimally invasive hysterectomy group at two years according to the 36-item Short Form (SF-36) (MD -10.71, 95% CI -15.11 to -6.30; 2 studies, 145 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95; 1 study, 616 women; moderate-certainty evidence). EA/ER probably increases the risk of further surgery for HMB compared to minimally invasive hysterectomy (RR 7.70, 95% CI 2.54 to 23.32; 4 studies, 922 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and treatments probably have similar rates of any serious adverse events (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.59; 4 studies, 809 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women with EA/ER are probably less likely to be satisfied with treatment at one year (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94; 1 study, 558 women; moderate-certainty evidence). We were unable to pool data for time to return to work or normal life because of extreme heterogeneity (99%); however, the three studies reporting this all had the same direction of effect favouring EA/ER. Endometrial resection/ablation versus unspecified route of hysterectomy We found three trials. EA/ER may lead to a lower perception of improvement in HMB compared to unspecified route of hysterectomy (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.95; 2 studies, 403 women; low-certainty evidence). Although EA/ER may lead to similar quality of life using the SF-36 General Health Perception at two years' follow-up (MD -1.90, 95% CI -8.67 to 4.87; 1 study, 209 women; low-certainty evidence), the proportion of women with improvement in general health at one year may be lower (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.95; 1 study, 185 women; low-certainty evidence). EA/ER probably has a risk of 5.4% of requiring further surgery for treatment failure (compared to 0 with total hysterectomy; 2 studies, 374 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and reduces the proportion of women with any serious adverse event (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.80; 2 studies, 374 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Both treatments probably lead to a similar satisfaction rate at one year' follow-up (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.04; 3 studies, 545 women; moderate-certainty evidence). EA/ER may lead to shorter time to return to normal activity (MD -18.90 days, 95% CI -24.63 to -13.17; 1 study, 172 women; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial resection/ablation (EA/ER) offers an alternative to hysterectomy as a surgical treatment for HMB. Effectiveness varies with EA/ER compared to different hysterectomy approaches. The perception of improvement in HMB with EA/ER is probably lower compared to open and unspecified route of hysterectomy, but may be similar compared to minimally invasive. Quality of life with EA/ER is probably similar to open and unspecified route of hysterectomy, but lower compared to minimally invasive hysterectomy. Further surgery for treatment failure is probably more likely with EA/ER compared to all routes of hysterectomy. Satisfaction rates also vary. EA/ER probably has a similar rate of satisfaction compared to open and unspecified route of hysterectomy, but a lower rate of satisfaction compared to minimally invasive hysterectomy. The proportion having any serious adverse event appears similar in all groups, but specific adverse events did reported difference between EA/ER and different routes. We were unable to draw conclusions about the time to return to normal activity, but the direction of effect suggests it is likely to be shorter with EA/ER.

Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy compared with second-generation endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding: the HEALTH RCT

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem that affects many British women. When initial medical treatment is unsuccessful, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends surgical options such as endometrial ablation (EA) or hysterectomy. Although clinically and economically more effective than EA, total hysterectomy necessitates a longer hospital stay and is associated with slower recovery and a higher risk of complications. Improvements in endoscopic equipment and training have made laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) accessible to most gynaecologists. This operation could preserve the advantages of total hysterectomy and reduce the risk of complications.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LASH with second-generation EA in women with HMB.

DESIGN

A parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio). Surgeons and participants were not blinded to the allocated procedure.

SETTING

Thirty-one UK secondary and tertiary hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Women aged < 50 years with HMB. Exclusion criteria included plans to conceive; endometrial atypia; abnormal cytology; uterine cavity size > 11 cm; any fibroids > 3 cm; contraindications to laparoscopic surgery; previous EA; and inability to give informed consent or complete trial paperwork.

INTERVENTIONS

LASH compared with second-generation EA.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Co-primary clinical outcome measures were (1) patient satisfaction and (2) Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Quality-of-Life Scale (MMAS) score at 15 months post randomisation. The primary economic outcome was incremental cost (NHS perspective) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

A total of 330 participants were randomised to each group (total n = 660). Women randomised to LASH were more likely to be satisfied with their treatment than those randomised to EA (97.1% vs. 87.1%) [adjusted difference in proportions 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.15; adjusted odds ratio (OR) from ordinal logistic regression (OLR) 2.53, 95% CI 1.83 to 3.48; p < 0.001]. Women randomised to LASH were also more likely to have the best possible MMAS score of 100 (68.7% vs. 54.5%) (adjusted difference in proportions 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.23; adjusted OR from OLR 1.87, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.67; p = 0.001). Serious adverse event rates were low and similar in both groups (4.5% vs. 3.6%). There was a significant difference in adjusted mean costs between LASH (£2886) and EA (£1282) at 15 months, but no significant difference in QALYs. Based on an extrapolation of expected differences in cost and QALYs out to 10 years, LASH cost an additional £1362 for an average QALY gain of 0.11, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,314 per QALY. Probabilities of cost-effectiveness were 53%, 71% and 80% at cost-effectiveness thresholds of £13,000, £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY gained, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Follow-up data beyond 15 months post randomisation are not available to inform cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

LASH is superior to EA in terms of clinical effectiveness. EA is less costly in the short term, but expected higher retreatment rates mean that LASH could be considered cost-effective by 10 years post procedure.

FUTURE WORK

Retreatment rates, satisfaction and quality-of-life scores at 10-year follow-up will help to inform long-term cost-effectiveness.

TRIAI REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49013893.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Outpatient endometrial ablation: audit of outcomes and patient satisfaction

Endometrial ablation in outpatient setting is associated with shorter hospital stay and quicker recovery. The primary outcome of this observational study was initiation and completion of procedure and secondary outcome measures were pain during the procedure and complications. The study was conducted in outpatient women's health clinic of Bolton Foundation NHS Trust UK, between March 2015 and July 2017. Out of 151 patients, all had oral analgesia at home. The procedure was initiated and completed in 83% cases. The median time for procedure was 78.5 s with range (34-120 s). The median intraoperative and immediate post-op pain score was 8 and 2, respectively. Post-procedure hysteroscopy confirmed intact cavity in all. Post-op analgesia was required in 2% cases. Eight-nine percent were discharged immediately, 10% had to be rested and observed for 30-60 min. None had serious complications. Ninety percent were satisfied with outpatient service and would recommend to friends and family.Impact StatementWhat is already known on this subject? Second-generation endometrial ablation is an effective first-line management option for heavy menstrual bleeding. Outpatient procedure is associated with shorter hospital stay, quicker recovery and avoids general anaesthesia and its complications.What do the results of this study add? This observational study confirmed that it was suitable to start the procedure in 83% cases. Once started, it was possible to complete in 100%. The most common cause for not being able to start the procedure was intolerability to the patients. The median immediate post-procedure pain score was 2 which was highly acceptable to patients. 90% of patients who underwent the outpatient endometrial ablation would choose to have further hysteroscopic procedures as outpatient.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Patients should be given choice for endometrial ablation either with or without general anaesthesia. Patients should be carefully selected for outpatient procedure taking into account informed consent, tolerability of speculum examination and endometrial pipelle biopsy as well as understanding anticipation of some discomfort. Further randomised controlled trials should be carried out to determine patient satisfaction with endometrial ablation with or without general anaesthesia.

Endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in women of reproductive age, causing them physical problems, social disruption and reducing their quality of life. Medical therapy has traditionally been first-line therapy. Surgical treatment of HMB often follows failed or ineffective medical therapy. The definitive treatment is hysterectomy, but this is a major surgical procedure with significant physical and emotional complications, as well as social and economic costs. Less invasive surgical techniques, such as endometrial resection and ablation, have been developed with the purpose of improving menstrual symptoms by removing or ablating the entire thickness of the endometrium.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of techniques of endometrial destruction by any means versus hysterectomy by any means for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic searches for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) targeted-but were not limited to-the following: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's specialised register, CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the ongoing trial registries. We made attempts to identify trials by examining citation lists of review articles and guidelines and by performing handsearching. Searches were performed in 1999, 2007, 2008, 2013 and on 10 December 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any RCTs that compared techniques of endometrial resection or ablation (by any means) with hysterectomy (by any technique) for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding in premenopausal women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed trials for risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine RCTs that fulfilled our inclusion criteria for this review. For two trials, the review authors identified multiple publications that assessed different outcomes at different postoperative time points for the same women. No included trials used third generation techniques.Clinical measures of improved bleeding symptoms and satisfaction rates were observed in women who had undergone hysterectomy compared to endometrial ablation. A slightly lower proportion of women who underwent endometrial ablation perceived improvement in bleeding symptoms at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.93; 4 studies, 650 women, I² = 31%; low-quality evidence), at two years (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 2 studies, 292 women, I² = 53%) and at four years (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99; 2 studies, 237 women, I² = 79%). Women in the endometrial ablation group also showed improvement in pictorial blood loss assessment chart compared to their baseline (PBAC) score at one year (MD 24.40, 95% CI 16.01 to 32.79; 1 study, 68 women; moderate-quality evidence) and at two years (MD 44.00, 95% CI 36.09 to 51.91; 1 study, 68 women). Repeat surgery resulting from failure of the initial treatment was more likely to be needed after endometrial ablation than after hysterectomy at one year (RR 16.17, 95% CI 5.53 to 47.24; 927 women; 7 studies; I² = 0%), at two years (RR 34.06, 95% CI 9.86 to 117.65; 930 women; 6 studies; I² = 0%), at three years (RR 22.90, 95% CI 1.42 to 370.26; 172 women; 1 study) and at four years (RR 36.32, 95% CI 5.09 to 259.21;197 women; 1 study). The satisfaction rate was lower amongst those who had endometrial ablation at two years after surgery (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95; 4 studies, 567 women, I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), and no evidence of clear difference was reported between post-treatment satisfaction rates in groups at other follow-up times (1 and 4 years).Most adverse events, both major and minor, were more likely after hysterectomy during hospital stay. Women who had an endometrial ablation were less likely to experience sepsis (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.31; participants = 621; studies = 4; I² = 62%), blood transfusion (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.59; 791 women; 5 studies; I² = 0%), pyrexia (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.35; 605 women; 3 studies; I² = 66%), vault haematoma (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.34; 858 women; 5 studies; I² = 0%) and wound haematoma (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.53; 202 women; 1 study) before hospital discharge. After discharge from hospital, the only difference that was reported for this group was a higher rate of infection (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.58; 172 women; 1 study).Recovery time was shorter in the endometrial ablation group, considering hospital stay, time to return to normal activities and time to return to work; we did not, however, pool these data owing to high heterogeneity. Some outcomes (such as a woman's perception of bleeding and proportion of women requiring further surgery for HMB), generated a low GRADE score, suggesting that further research in these areas is likely to change the estimates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial resection and ablation offers an alternative to hysterectomy as a surgical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. Both procedures are effective, and satisfaction rates are high. Although hysterectomy offers permanent and immediate relief from heavy menstrual bleeding, it is associated with a longer operating time and recovery period. Hysterectomy also has higher rates of postoperative complications such as sepsis, blood transfusion and haematoma (vault and wound). The initial cost of endometrial destruction is lower than that of hysterectomy but, because retreatment is often necessary, the cost difference narrows over time.

Factors associated with receiving surgical treatment for menorrhagia in England and Wales: findings from a cohort study of the National Heavy Menstrual Bleeding Audit

OBJECTIVE

To examine the factors associated with receiving surgery for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) in England and Wales.

DESIGN

National cohort study.

SETTING

National Health Service hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Women with HMB aged 18-60 who had a new referral to secondary care.

METHODS

Patient-reported data linked to administrative hospital data. Risk ratios (RR) estimated using multivariable Poisson regression.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Surgery within 1 year of first outpatient clinic visit.

RESULTS

14 545 women were included. At their first clinic visit, mean age was 42 years, mean symptom severity score was 62 (scale ranging from 0 (least) to 100 (most severe)), 73.9% of women reported having symptoms for >1 year and 30.4% reported no prior treatment in primary care. One year later, 42.6% had received surgery. Of these, 57.8% had endometrial ablation and 37.2% hysterectomy. Women with more severe symptoms were more likely to have received surgery (most vs least severe quintile, 33.1% vs 56.0%; RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.5 to 1.7). Surgery was more likely among those who reported prior primary care treatment compared with those who did not (48.0% vs 31.1%; RR 1.5, 95% CI 1.4 to 1.6). Surgery was less likely among Asian and more likely among black women, compared with white women. Surgery was not associated with socioeconomic deprivation.

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of surgery for HMB depends on symptom severity and prior treatment in primary care. Referral pathways should be locally audited to ensure women with HMB receive care that addresses their individual needs and preferences, especially for those who do not receive treatment in primary care.

Managing Heavy Menstrual Bleeding in Women at Risk of Thrombosis

Management of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) in a woman with a history of thrombosis, or who is otherwise at high risk of thrombosis, or who takes medications for anticoagulation can present a challenge to health care providers. The goal of treating HMB is to reduce menstrual blood loss. First-line therapy is typically hormonal, and hormonal therapy can be contraindicated in women with a history of thrombosis unless they are on anticoagulation. As 70% of women on anticoagulation experience HMB, successful management of HMB may involve a modification in the anticoagulation or antiplatelet regimen, hormonal therapy tailored to the patient's situation, and/or surgical therapy.

Economic Evaluation of Global Endometrial Ablation Versus Inpatient and Outpatient Hysterectomy for Treatment of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: US Commercial and Medicaid Payer Perspectives

Every year, abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) exacts a heavy toll on women's health and leads to high costs for the US health care system. The literature shows that endometrial ablation results in fewer complications, shorter recovery and lower costs than more commonly performed hysterectomy procedures. The objective of this study was to model clinical-economic outcomes, budget impact, and cost-effectiveness of global endometrial ablation (GEA) versus outpatient hysterectomy (OPH) and inpatient hysterectomy (IPH) procedures. A decision tree, state-transition (semi-Markov) economic model was developed to simulate 3 hypothetical cohorts of women who received surgical treatment for AUB (GEA, OPH, and IPH) over 1, 2, and 3 years to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes for GEA vs. OPH and GEA vs. IPH. Two versions of the model were created to reflect both commercial health care payer and US Medicaid perspectives, and analyses were conducted for both payer types. Total health care costs in the first year after GEA were substantially lower compared with those for IPH and OPH. Budget impact analysis results showed that increasing GEA utilization yields total annual cost savings of about $906,000 for a million-member commercial health plan and about $152,000 in cost savings for a typical-sized state Medicaid plan with 1.4 million members. Cost-effectiveness analysis results for both perspectives showed GEA as economically dominant (conferring greater benefit at lower cost) over both OPH and IPH in the 1-year commercial scenario. This study demonstrates that, for some patients, GEA may prove to be a safe, uterus-sparing, cost-effective alternative to OPH and IPH for the surgical treatment of AUB.

HEALTH: laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy versus second-generation endometrial ablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem affecting approximately 1.5 million women in England and Wales with a major impact on their physical, emotional, social and material quality of life. It is the fourth most common reason why women attend gynaecology outpatient clinics and accounts for one-fifth of all gynaecology outpatient referrals. Initial treatment in primary care is medical - either by means of oral or injected medication or the levonorgestrel-intrauterine system (Mirena®). If medical treatment fails then surgical treatment can be offered, either endometrial ablation (EA), which destroys the lining of the cavity of the uterus (endometrium), or hysterectomy, i.e. surgical removal of the uterus.

While effective, conventional hysterectomy is invasive and carries a risk of complications due to injury to other pelvic structures. The procedure can be simplified and complications minimised by undertaking a ‘supracervical’ hysterectomy where the cervix is left in situ and only the body of the uterus removed. Recent advances in endoscopic technologies have facilitated increased use of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) which can be performed as a day-case procedure and is relatively easy for the surgeon to learn.

HEALTH (Hysterectomy or Endometrial AbLation Trial for Heavy menstrual bleeding) aims to address the question ‘Is LASH superior to second generation EA for the treatment of HMB in terms of clinical and cost effectiveness?’

Methods/Design

Women aged < 50 years, with HMB, in whom medical treatment has failed and who are eligible for EA will be considered for trial entry. We aim to recruit women from approximately 30 active secondary care centres in the UK NHS who carry out both surgical procedures. All women who consent will complete a diary of pain symptoms from day 1 to day 14 after surgery, postal questionnaires at six weeks and six months after surgery and 15 months post randomisation. Healthcare utilisation questions will also be completed at the six-week, six-month and 15-month time-points.

Discussion

Measuring the comparative effectiveness of LASH vs EA will provide the robust evidence required to determine whether the new technique should be adopted widely in the NHS.

Trial registration

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN49013893. Registered on 28 January 2014.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-017-2374-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cost-effectiveness of treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding affects up to one third of women in the United States, resulting in a reduced quality of life and significant cost to the health care system. Multiple treatment options exist, offering different potential for symptom control at highly variable initial costs, but the relative value of these treatment options is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of 4 treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding: hysterectomy, resectoscopic endometrial ablation, nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation, and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system.

STUDY DESIGN

We formulated a decision tree evaluating private payer costs and quality-adjusted life years over a 5 year time horizon for premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding and no suspected malignancy. For each treatment option, we used probabilities derived from literature review to estimate frequencies of minor complications, major complications, and treatment failure resulting in the need for additional treatments. Treatments were compared in terms of total average costs, quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to understand the range of possible outcomes if model inputs were varied.

RESULTS

The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system had superior quality-of-life outcomes to hysterectomy with lower costs. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system was cost-effective compared with hysterectomy in the majority of scenarios (90%). Both resectoscopic and nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation were associated with reduced costs compared with hysterectomy but resulted in a lower average quality of life. According to standard willingness-to-pay thresholds, resectoscopic endometrial ablation was considered cost effective compared with hysterectomy in 44% of scenarios, and nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation was considered cost effective compared with hysterectomy in 53% of scenarios.

CONCLUSION

Comparing all trade-offs associated with 4 possible treatments of heavy menstrual bleeding, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system was superior to both hysterectomy and endometrial ablation in terms of cost and quality of life. Hysterectomy is associated with a superior quality of life and fewer complications than either type of ablation but at a higher cost. For women who are unwilling or unable to choose the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system as a first-course treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding, consideration of cost, procedure-specific complications, and patient preferences can guide the decision between hysterectomy and ablation.

Long-term incidence of hysterectomy following endometrial resection or endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the incidence of hysterectomy following endometrial resection or endometrial ablation (ERA).

METHODS

The present retrospective study enrolled women who underwent ERA for benign heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, UK, between February 1, 1990, and December 31, 1997; follow-up data to the end of 2015 were included from the pathology laboratory report system from the single pathology laboratory in the region. Data were compared between patients who did or did not require a hysterectomy after ERA.

RESULTS

There were 901 patients who underwent ERA for HMB during the study period. The mean age of patients was 42.3 ± 5.7 years; of the patients included, 206 (22.9%) women underwent hysterectomy and these patients had a mean age of 40.1 years. Of the patients who had hysterectomies, 155 (75.2%) did so in the first 5 years following ERA, 31 (15.0%) did within 6-10 years, 11 (5.3%) did within 11-15 years, and 9 (4.4%) did within 16-20 years. In total, 51 (24.8%) of these patients had hysterectomies within 6-25 years of ERA.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant majority of women who underwent ERA for HMB did not require hysterectomy up to 25 years after the procedure.

Abnormal Uterine Bleeding

Abnormal uterine bleeding is a frequent condition in Gynecology. It may impact physical, emotional sexual and professional aspects of the lives of women, impairing their quality of life. In cases of acute and severe bleeding, women may need urgent treatment with volumetric replacement and prescription of hemostatic substances. In some specific cases with more intense and prolonged bleeding, surgical treatment may be necessary. The objective of this chapter is to describe the main evidence on the treatment of women with abnormal uterine bleeding, both acute and chronic. Didactically, the treatment options were based on the current International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) classification system (PALM-COEIN). The etiologies of PALM-COEIN are: uterine Polyp (P), Adenomyosis (A), Leiomyoma (L), precursor and Malignant lesions of the uterine body (M), Coagulopathies (C), Ovulatory dysfunction (O), Endometrial dysfunction (E), Iatrogenic (I), and Not yet classified (N). The articles were selected according to the recommendation grades of the PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases, and those in which the main objective was the reduction of uterine menstrual bleeding were included. Only studies written in English were included. All editorial or complete papers that were not consistent with abnormal uterine bleeding, or studies in animal models, were excluded. The main objective of the treatment is the reduction of menstrual flow and morbidity and the improvement of quality of life. It is important to emphasize that the treatment in the acute phase aims to hemodynamically stabilize the patient and stop excessive bleeding, while the treatment in the chronic phase is based on correcting menstrual dysfunction according to its etiology and clinical manifestations. The treatment may be surgical or pharmacological, and the latter is based mainly on hormonal therapy, anti-inflammatory drugs and antifibrinolytics.

Heavy menstrual bleeding: work-up and management

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), which is the preferred term for menorrhagia, affects ∼90% of women with an underlying bleeding disorder and ∼70% of women on anticoagulation. HMB can be predicted on the basis of clots of ≥1 inch diameter, low ferritin, and "flooding" (a change of pad or tampon more frequently than hourly). The goal of the work-up is to determine whether there is a uterine/endometrial cause, a disorder of ovulation, or a disorder of coagulation. HMB manifest by flooding and/or prolonged menses, or HMB accompanied by a personal or family history of bleeding is very suggestive of a bleeding disorder and should prompt a referral to a hematologist. The evaluation will include the patient's history, pelvic examination, and/or pelvic imaging, and a laboratory assessment for anemia, ovulatory dysfunction, underlying bleeding disorder, and in the case of the patient on anticoagulation, assessment for over anticoagulation. The goal of treatment is to reduce HMB. Not only will the treatment strategy depend on whether there is ovulatory dysfunction, uterine pathology, or an abnormality of coagulation, the treatment strategy will also depend on the age of the patient and her desire for immediate or long-term fertility. Hemostatic therapy for HMB may serve as an alternative to hormonal or surgical therapy, and may even be life-saving when used to correct an abnormality of coagulation.

Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System (52 mg) for Idiopathic Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding affects as many as one in three women and has negative physical, economic, and psychosocial impacts including activity limitations and reduced quality of life. The goal of treatment is to make menstruation manageable, and options include medical therapy or surgery such as endometrial ablation or hysterectomy. This review examined the evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) as a treatment alternative for idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the clinical and economic evidence comparing LNG-IUS with usual medical therapy, endometrial ablation, or hysterectomy. Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and the Centres for Reviews and Dissemination were searched from inception to August 2015. The quality of the evidence was assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also completed an economic evaluation to determine the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the LNG-IUS compared with endometrial ablation and with hysterectomy. The economic evaluation was conducted from the perspective the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

RESULTS

Relevant systematic reviews (n = 18) returned from the literature search were used to identify eligible randomized controlled trials, and 16 trials were included. The LNG-IUS improved quality of life and reduced menstrual blood loss better than usual medical therapy. There was no evidence of a significant difference in these outcomes compared with the improvements offered by endometrial ablation or hysterectomy. Mild hormonal side effects were the most commonly reported. The quality of the evidence varied from very low to moderate across outcomes. Results from the economic evaluation showed the LNG-IUS was less costly (incremental saving of $372 per person) and more effective providing higher quality-adjusted life years (incremental value of 0.05) compared with endometrial ablation. Similarly, the LNG-IUS costs less (incremental saving of $3,138 per person) and yields higher quality-adjusted life-years (incremental value of 0.04) compared with hysterectomy. Publicly funding LNG-IUS as an alternative to endometrial ablation and hysterectomy would result in annual cost savings of $3 million to $9 million and $0.1 million to $23 million, respectively, over the first 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The 52-mg LNG-IUS is an effective and cost-effective treatment option for idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding. It improves quality of life and menstrual blood loss, and is well tolerated compared with endometrial ablation, hysterectomy, or usual medical therapies.

Surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding significantly impairs the quality of life of many otherwise healthy women. Perception of heavy menstrual bleeding is subjective and management usually depends upon what symptoms are acceptable to the individual. Surgical options include conservative surgery (uterine resection or ablation) and hysterectomy. Medical treatment options include oral medication and a hormone-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from inception to January 2016: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and clinical trials registers (clinical trials.gov and ICTRP). We also searched the reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing conservative surgery or hysterectomy versus medical therapy (oral or intrauterine) for heavy menstrual bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed their risk of bias and extracted the data. Our primary outcomes were menstrual bleeding, satisfaction rate and adverse events. Where appropriate we pooled the data to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using a fixed-effect model. We assessed heterogeneity with the I(2) statistic and evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 parallel-group RCTs (1289 women). Surgical interventions included hysterectomy and endometrial resection or ablation. Medical interventions included oral medication and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS). The overall quality of the evidence for different comparisons ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were lack of blinding, attrition and imprecision. Moreover, it was difficult to interpret long-term study findings as many women randomised to medical interventions subsequently underwent surgery. Surgery versus oral medicationSurgery (endometrial resection) was more effective in controlling bleeding at four months (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.94 to 3.64, one RCT, 186 women, moderate quality evidence) and also at two years (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.57, one RCT, 173 women, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups at five years (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34, one RCT, 140 women, very low quality evidence).Satisfaction with treatment was higher in the surgical group at two years (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.74, one RCT, 173 women, moderate quality evidence), but there was no evidence of a difference between the groups at five years (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.37, one RCT, 114 women, very low quality evidence). There were fewer adverse events in the surgical group at four months (RR 0.26, 95 CI 0.15 to 0.46, one RCT, 186 women). These findings require cautious interpretation, as 59% of women randomised to the oral medication group had had surgery within two years and 77% within five years. Surgery versus LNG-IUSWhen hysterectomy was compared with LNG-IUS, the hysterectomy group were more likely to have objective control of bleeding at one year (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.19, one RCT, 223 women, moderate quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life between the groups at five or 10 years, but by 10 years 46% of women originally assigned to LNG-IUS had undergone hysterectomy. Adverse effects associated with hysterectomy included surgical complications such as bladder or bowel perforation and vesicovaginal fistula. Adverse effects associated with LNG-IUS were ongoing bleeding and hormonal symptoms.When conservative surgery was compared with LNG-IUS, at one year the surgical group were more likely to have subjective control of bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32, five RCTs, 281 women, low quality evidence, I(2) = 15%). Satisfaction rates were higher in the surgical group at one year (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04, to 1.28, six RCTs, 442 women, I(2) = 27%), but this finding was sensitive to the choice of statistical model and use of a random-effects model showed no conclusive evidence of a difference between the groups. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in satisfaction rates at two years (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, two RCTs, 117 women, I(2) = 1%).At one year there were fewer adverse events (such as bleeding and spotting) in the surgical group (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.82, three RCTs, moderate quality evidence). It was unclear what proportion of women assigned to LNG-IUS underwent surgery over long-term follow-up, as there were few data beyond one year.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Surgery, especially hysterectomy, reduces menstrual bleeding more than medical treatment at one year. There is no conclusive evidence of a difference in satisfaction rates between surgery and LNG-IUS, though adverse effects such as bleeding and spotting are more likely to occur with LNG-IUS. Oral medication suits a minority of women in the long term, and the LNG-IUS device provides a better alternative to surgery in most cases. Although hysterectomy is a definitive treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding, it can cause serious complications for a minority of women. Most women may be well advised to try a less radical treatment as first-line therapy. Both LNG-IUS and conservative surgery appear to be safe, acceptable and effective.

The Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System: Reasons to Expand Access to the Public Sector of Africa

The levonorgestrel intrauterine system has: (1) excellent effectiveness, (2) high satisfaction levels, (3) non-contraceptive benefits, and (4) potential to help reinvigorate interest in intrauterine contraception. The time is ripe for ministries and donor agencies to work together to make the product widely available across Africa.

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.

Evaluating Cost-effectiveness of Interventions That Affect Fertility and Childbearing: How Health Effects Are Measured Matters

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines for economic evaluations of health interventions define relevant outcomes as those accruing to individuals receiving interventions. Little consensus exists on counting health impacts on current and future fertility and childbearing. Our objective was to characterize current practices for counting such health outcomes.

METHODS

We developed a framework characterizing health interventions with direct and/or indirect effects on fertility and childbearing and how such outcomes are reported. We identified interventions spanning the framework and performed a targeted literature review for economic evaluations of these interventions. For each article, we characterized how the potential health outcomes from each intervention were considered, focusing on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with fertility and childbearing.

RESULTS

We reviewed 108 studies, identifying 7 themes: 1) Studies were heterogeneous in reporting outcomes. 2) Studies often selected outcomes for inclusion that tend to bias toward finding the intervention to be cost-effective. 3) Studies often avoided the challenges of assigning QALYs for pregnancy and fertility by instead considering cost per intermediate outcome. 4) Even for the same intervention, studies took heterogeneous approaches to outcome evaluation. 5) Studies used multiple, competing rationales for whether and how to include fertility-related QALYs and whose QALYs to include. 6) Studies examining interventions with indirect effects on fertility typically ignored such QALYs. 7) Even recent studies had these shortcomings. Limitations include that the review was targeted rather than systematic.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluations inconsistently consider QALYs from current and future fertility and childbearing in ways that frequently appear biased toward the interventions considered. As the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine updates its guidelines, making the practice of cost-effectiveness analysis more consistent is a priority. Our study contributes to harmonizing methods in this respect.

A model-based assessment of the cost-utility of strategies to identify Lynch syndrome in early-onset colorectal cancer patients

Background

Lynch syndrome is an autosomal dominant cancer predisposition syndrome caused by mutations in the DNA mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2. Individuals with Lynch syndrome have an increased risk of colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian and other cancers. Lynch syndrome remains underdiagnosed in the UK. Reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in early-onset colorectal cancer patients is proposed as a method to identify more families affected by Lynch syndrome and offer surveillance to reduce cancer risks, although cost-effectiveness is viewed as a barrier to implementation. The objective of this project was to estimate the cost–utility of strategies to identify Lynch syndrome in individuals with early-onset colorectal cancer in the NHS.

Methods

A decision analytic model was developed which simulated diagnostic and long-term outcomes over a lifetime horizon for colorectal cancer patients with and without Lynch syndrome and for relatives of those patients. Nine diagnostic strategies were modelled which included microsatellite instability (MSI) testing, immunohistochemistry (IHC), BRAF mutation testing (methylation testing in a scenario analysis), diagnostic mutation testing and Amsterdam II criteria. Biennial colonoscopic surveillance was included for individuals diagnosed with Lynch syndrome and accepting surveillance. Prophylactic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (H-BSO) was similarly included for women diagnosed with Lynch syndrome. Costs from NHS and Personal Social Services perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated and discounted at 3.5% per annum.

Results

All strategies included for the identification of Lynch syndrome were cost-effective versus no testing. The strategy with the greatest net health benefit was MSI followed by BRAF followed by diagnostic genetic testing, costing £5,491 per QALY gained over no testing. The effect of prophylactic H-BSO on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is uncertain and could outweigh the health benefits of testing, resulting in overall QALY loss.

Conclusions

Reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in early-onset colorectal cancer patients is predicted to be a cost-effective use of limited financial resources in England and Wales. Research is recommended into the cost-effectiveness of reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in other associated cancers and into the impact of prophylactic H-BSO on HRQoL.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1254-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

USE OF VALUE OF INFORMATION IN UK HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS

Objectives: The aim of this study was to identify and critically appraise the use of Value of Information (VOI) analyses undertaken as part of health technology assessment (HTA) reports in England and Wales.

Methods: A systematic review of National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) funded HTA reports published between 2004 and 2013 identified the use of VOI methods and key analytical details in terms of: (i) types of VOI methodology used; (ii) parameters and key assumptions; and (iii) conclusions drawn in terms of the need for further research.

Results: A total of 512 HTA reports were published during the relevant timeframe. Of these, 203 reported systematic review and economic modeling studies and 25 of these had used VOI method(s). Over half of the twenty-five studies (n = 13) conducted both EVPI (Expected Value of Perfect Information) and EVPPI (Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information) analyses. Eight studies conducted EVPI analysis, three studies conducted EVPI, EVPPI, and EVSI (Expected Value of Sampling Information) analyses and one study conducted EVSI analysis only. The level of detail reporting the methods used to conduct the VOI analyses varied.

Conclusions: This review has shown that the frequency of the use of VOI methods is increasing at a slower pace compared with the published volume of HTA reports. This review also suggests that analysts reporting VOI method(s) in HTA reports should aim to describe the method(s) in sufficient detail to enable and encourage decision-makers guiding research prioritization decisions to use the potentially valuable outputs from quantitative VOI analyses.

Economic and clinical benefits of radiofrequency ablation versus hysterectomy in patients suffering from menorrhagia: a retrospective analysis with German health claims data

OBJECTIVE

To assess clinical and economic benefits of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) compared to hysterectomy when treating patients suffering from menorrhagia.

METHODS

Based on German health claims data, a retrospective, longitudinal, observational analysis was performed. Patients having continuously statutory health insurance coverage during the study and being coded for menorrhagia and a relevant treatment option were included in the analysis. The control group was created using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

We discovered that using RFA generates cost savings of €1844 during the quarter of performance. As direct costs during a 2-year follow-up show similar levels in both groups, these initial savings can be preserved. This is partly because even if more patients in the RFA group were re-coded for menorrhagia after initial therapy, just a small proportion of these patients required another surgical intervention.

CONCLUSION

RFA should more often be considered a relevant treatment option both from an economic and a medical point of view.

Low-dose dexamethasone as a treatment for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: protocol for response-adaptive randomised placebo-controlled dose-finding parallel group trial (DexFEM)

INTRODUCTION

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) diminishes individual quality-of-life and poses substantial societal burden. In HMB endometrium, inactivation of cortisol (by enzyme 11β hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 2 (11βHSD2)), may cause local endometrial glucocorticoid deficiency and hence increased angiogenesis and impaired vasoconstriction. We propose that 'rescue' of luteal phase endometrial glucocorticoid deficiency could reduce menstrual bleeding.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

DexFEM is a double-blind response-adaptive parallel-group placebo-controlled trial in women with HMB (108 to be randomised), with active treatment the potent oral synthetic glucocorticoid dexamethasone, which is relatively resistant to 11βHSD2 inactivation. Participants will be aged over 18 years, with mean measured menstrual blood loss (MBL) for two screening cycles ≥50 mL. The primary outcome is reduction in MBL from screening. Secondary end points are questionnaire assessments of treatment effect and acceptability. Treatment will be for 5 days in the mid-luteal phases of three treatment menstrual cycles. Six doses of low-dose dexamethasone (ranging from 0.2 to 0.9 mg twice daily) will be compared with placebo, to ascertain optimal dose, and whether this has advantage over placebo. Statistical efficiency is maximised by allowing randomisation probabilities to 'adapt' at five points during enrolment phase, based on the response data available so far, to favour doses expected to provide greatest additional information on the dose-response. Bayesian Normal Dynamic Linear Modelling, with baseline MBL included as covariate, will determine optimal dose (re reduction in MBL). Secondary end points will be analysed using generalised dynamic linear models. For each dose for all end points, a 95% credible interval will be calculated for effect versus placebo.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Dexamethasone is widely used and hence well-characterised safety-wise. Ethical approval has been obtained from Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (12/SS/0147). Trial findings will be disseminated via open-access peer-reviewed publications, conferences, clinical networks, public lectures, and our websites.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01769820; EudractCT 2012-003405-98.

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.

Concomitant hysteroscopic endometrial ablation and Essure procedure: feasibility, efficacy and satisfaction

OBJECTIVE

Hysteroscopic endometrial destruction procedures for abnormal uterine bleeding are an alternative to hysterectomy. Such procedures are not contraceptive and are performed on fertile patients, requiring long-term contraception. This is the first study evaluating long-term results of a combined procedure associating endometrial destruction and concomitant hysteroscopic tubal sterilization by Essure(®) micro-inserts. Our goal is to evaluate efficacy of endometrial destruction as well as hysteroscopic sterilization and satisfaction after a combined procedure in the case of abnormal uterine bleeding in non-menopausal patients.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective study (Canadian task force II-2) that includes 131 patients operated with combined endometrial destruction and hysteroscopic tubal sterilization between 2002 and 2011 at our university hospital. The patients were contacted to answer a questionnaire. Statistical analysis was performed with SAS© version 9.2. (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients out of 131 could be reached. The mean follow-up was of 37.8 months (min=8, max=87, SD=6.2). Thirty-eight patients (29%) were lost to follow-up. Essure(®) micro-inserts introduction success rate (evaluated on 131 patients) was 95.8%, and their position was appropriate in 81.1% of the 106 patients with position control. Efficacy of the procedure on the haemorrhagic symptoms (evaluated on 93 patients) was 80.6%. Twelve patients (12.9%) underwent a hysterectomy, 7 of which (58.3%) were a direct consequence of treatment failure. No pregnancies were reported. Satisfaction rate was of 90.3%.

CONCLUSION

Inadequate position rates of the micro-inserts after 3 months seem somewhat above literature findings, though no pregnancy has been reported. However, recurrent bleeding symptoms and hysterectomy rates are consistent with those observed after an endometrial destruction procedure alone. Limitations are the limited number of patients, the bias inherent to retrospective studies (lost of follow-up, selection bias). The concomitant endometrial destruction and tubal sterilization by micro-inserts is a safe and efficient procedure.