A Cost-Utility Analysis of Microwave Endometrial Ablation versus Thermal Balloon Endometrial Ablation

Mary M. Kilonzo, Alison M. Sambrook, Jonathan A. Cook, Marion K. Campbell, Kevin G. Cooper

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of microwave endometrial ablation (MEA) and thermal balloon endometrial ablation (TBALL) for heavy menstrual bleeding.

Methods: A cost-utility analysis performed alongside a pragmatic RCT in a single hospital within Scotland on women undergoing MEA and TBALL. Resource use data collected from all 314 trial participants were combined with study specific and published unit cost data to estimate a cost per patient. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were based on EQ-5D responses at baseline, 2 weeks, 6 and 12 months. The incremental cost per QALY of TBALL versus MEA was calculated and bootstrapping was performed to determine the likelihood that a treatment would be cost-effective at different threshold values for society's willingness to pay for a QALY.

Results: The mean cost of TBALL (10 years equipment life, 100 uses annually) of reusable equipment was 181 pound (95% confidence interval [CI] 70-434) pound greater than MEA. There were no statistically significant differences between the total nonhealth costs and health benefits of the two arms. On average, MEA provided more QALYs after adjusting for baseline EQ-5D score (0.017; 95% CI 0.017-0.051). In terms of mean incremental cost per QALY, MEA was, on average, dominant (less costly and at least as effective) and there was over a 90% chance that MEA would be considered cost-effective at a 20,000 pound threshold of a cost per QALY.

Conclusions: MEA is likely to be more cost-effective than TBALL at 1 year. Further longer-term follow-up is, however, needed.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)528-534
Number of pages7
JournalValue in Health
Volume13
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2010

Keywords

  • cost-utility analysis
  • health-related quality of life
  • quality-adjusted life-year
  • randomized controlled trial
  • randomized-trial
  • hysterectomy
  • resection

Cite this

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Microwave Endometrial Ablation versus Thermal Balloon Endometrial Ablation. / Kilonzo, Mary M.; Sambrook, Alison M.; Cook, Jonathan A.; Campbell, Marion K.; Cooper, Kevin G.

In: Value in Health, Vol. 13, No. 5, 07.2010, p. 528-534.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kilonzo, Mary M. ; Sambrook, Alison M. ; Cook, Jonathan A. ; Campbell, Marion K. ; Cooper, Kevin G. / A Cost-Utility Analysis of Microwave Endometrial Ablation versus Thermal Balloon Endometrial Ablation. In: Value in Health. 2010 ; Vol. 13, No. 5. pp. 528-534.
@article{f8d9e77ea54e403ca16748b9842b0947,
title = "A Cost-Utility Analysis of Microwave Endometrial Ablation versus Thermal Balloon Endometrial Ablation",
abstract = "Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of microwave endometrial ablation (MEA) and thermal balloon endometrial ablation (TBALL) for heavy menstrual bleeding.Methods: A cost-utility analysis performed alongside a pragmatic RCT in a single hospital within Scotland on women undergoing MEA and TBALL. Resource use data collected from all 314 trial participants were combined with study specific and published unit cost data to estimate a cost per patient. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were based on EQ-5D responses at baseline, 2 weeks, 6 and 12 months. The incremental cost per QALY of TBALL versus MEA was calculated and bootstrapping was performed to determine the likelihood that a treatment would be cost-effective at different threshold values for society's willingness to pay for a QALY.Results: The mean cost of TBALL (10 years equipment life, 100 uses annually) of reusable equipment was 181 pound (95{\%} confidence interval [CI] 70-434) pound greater than MEA. There were no statistically significant differences between the total nonhealth costs and health benefits of the two arms. On average, MEA provided more QALYs after adjusting for baseline EQ-5D score (0.017; 95{\%} CI 0.017-0.051). In terms of mean incremental cost per QALY, MEA was, on average, dominant (less costly and at least as effective) and there was over a 90{\%} chance that MEA would be considered cost-effective at a 20,000 pound threshold of a cost per QALY.Conclusions: MEA is likely to be more cost-effective than TBALL at 1 year. Further longer-term follow-up is, however, needed.",
keywords = "cost-utility analysis, health-related quality of life, quality-adjusted life-year, randomized controlled trial, randomized-trial, hysterectomy, resection",
author = "Kilonzo, {Mary M.} and Sambrook, {Alison M.} and Cook, {Jonathan A.} and Campbell, {Marion K.} and Cooper, {Kevin G.}",
year = "2010",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00704.x",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "528--534",
journal = "Value in Health",
issn = "1098-3015",
publisher = "ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Cost-Utility Analysis of Microwave Endometrial Ablation versus Thermal Balloon Endometrial Ablation

AU - Kilonzo, Mary M.

AU - Sambrook, Alison M.

AU - Cook, Jonathan A.

AU - Campbell, Marion K.

AU - Cooper, Kevin G.

PY - 2010/7

Y1 - 2010/7

N2 - Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of microwave endometrial ablation (MEA) and thermal balloon endometrial ablation (TBALL) for heavy menstrual bleeding.Methods: A cost-utility analysis performed alongside a pragmatic RCT in a single hospital within Scotland on women undergoing MEA and TBALL. Resource use data collected from all 314 trial participants were combined with study specific and published unit cost data to estimate a cost per patient. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were based on EQ-5D responses at baseline, 2 weeks, 6 and 12 months. The incremental cost per QALY of TBALL versus MEA was calculated and bootstrapping was performed to determine the likelihood that a treatment would be cost-effective at different threshold values for society's willingness to pay for a QALY.Results: The mean cost of TBALL (10 years equipment life, 100 uses annually) of reusable equipment was 181 pound (95% confidence interval [CI] 70-434) pound greater than MEA. There were no statistically significant differences between the total nonhealth costs and health benefits of the two arms. On average, MEA provided more QALYs after adjusting for baseline EQ-5D score (0.017; 95% CI 0.017-0.051). In terms of mean incremental cost per QALY, MEA was, on average, dominant (less costly and at least as effective) and there was over a 90% chance that MEA would be considered cost-effective at a 20,000 pound threshold of a cost per QALY.Conclusions: MEA is likely to be more cost-effective than TBALL at 1 year. Further longer-term follow-up is, however, needed.

AB - Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of microwave endometrial ablation (MEA) and thermal balloon endometrial ablation (TBALL) for heavy menstrual bleeding.Methods: A cost-utility analysis performed alongside a pragmatic RCT in a single hospital within Scotland on women undergoing MEA and TBALL. Resource use data collected from all 314 trial participants were combined with study specific and published unit cost data to estimate a cost per patient. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were based on EQ-5D responses at baseline, 2 weeks, 6 and 12 months. The incremental cost per QALY of TBALL versus MEA was calculated and bootstrapping was performed to determine the likelihood that a treatment would be cost-effective at different threshold values for society's willingness to pay for a QALY.Results: The mean cost of TBALL (10 years equipment life, 100 uses annually) of reusable equipment was 181 pound (95% confidence interval [CI] 70-434) pound greater than MEA. There were no statistically significant differences between the total nonhealth costs and health benefits of the two arms. On average, MEA provided more QALYs after adjusting for baseline EQ-5D score (0.017; 95% CI 0.017-0.051). In terms of mean incremental cost per QALY, MEA was, on average, dominant (less costly and at least as effective) and there was over a 90% chance that MEA would be considered cost-effective at a 20,000 pound threshold of a cost per QALY.Conclusions: MEA is likely to be more cost-effective than TBALL at 1 year. Further longer-term follow-up is, however, needed.

KW - cost-utility analysis

KW - health-related quality of life

KW - quality-adjusted life-year

KW - randomized controlled trial

KW - randomized-trial

KW - hysterectomy

KW - resection

U2 - 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00704.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00704.x

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 528

EP - 534

JO - Value in Health

JF - Value in Health

SN - 1098-3015

IS - 5

ER -