A survey of cost, access and outcomes for cannabinoid-based medicinal product use by Australians with endometriosis.

People with endometriosis use cannabis to manage their symptoms. This study aimed to identify costs, modes of administration, product composition, and self-reported effectiveness for those accessing medicinal cannabis in Australia. There were 192 survey responses analysed. Most (63.5%) used a 'cannabis clinic' doctor, incurring an initial consultation cost of $100-$200+ (10.2% Medicare bulk-billed) and median cannabinoid medicine costs of $300AUD per month. Cost was a major barrier to access, necessitating reducing dosage (76.1%) and/or consuming illicit cannabis (42.9%), despite a prescription. Most (77%) medical consumers used two or more cannabis products, with delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol predominant oil and flower products most frequently prescribed.

Hospital-Associated Cost of Endometriosis in Canada: A Population-Based Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To describe the hospital-associated cost of endometriosis in Canada from April 2008 to March 2013. DESIGN: Population-based descriptive study. SETTING: Canada, with the exception of the province of Quebec. PATIENTS: All women aged 15 to 59 years discharged with endometriosis between April 2008 and March 2013. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Over 5 years, 47 021 women were admitted for endometriosis, resulting in a total hospital cost of Canadian dollars (CaD) $152.21 million (US dollars [US $] 147.79 million) and per-case cost of CaD $3237 (US $3143). Uterine endometriosis accounted for 28.29% of cases, ovarian endometriosis 27.44%, and other endometriosis 44.27%. Cost for uterine endometriosis was the highest at CaD $4137 (US $4017) per case, followed by ovarian endometriosis (CaD $3506; US $3404) and other endometriosis (CaD $2495; US $2422). The highest number of cases were in the groups aged 35 to 39 years (20.77%) and 40 to 44 years (20.44%). Hysterectomy accounted for 29.57% of surgical procedures. Encounters with hysterectomy were the costliest at CaD $5062 (US $4915) per case, followed by the ones with other surgical procedures at CaD $2477 (US $2405) per case, and admissions with no surgical procedure at CaD $2164 (US $2101) per case. CONCLUSION: The hospital cost associated with endometriosis was approximately CaD $30 million (US $29.56 million) per year, whereas uterine endometriosis, hysterectomy, and older age were found to have a higher average cost per case. Although this study focuses specifically on hospital admission and does not account for outpatient costs or indirect costs, it nonetheless highlights the economic burden of this debilitating disease on Canadian society during the study period.

Healthcare Consumption and Cost Estimates Concerning Swedish Women with Endometriosis.

INTRODUCTION: Endometriosis is known for its substantial effect on women's wellbeing and quality of life. In order to evaluate disease burden, treatments and health services, assessments of healthcare consumption and cost estimates are necessary. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to estimate healthcare consumption and annual cost per woman with endometriosis in Sweden and to examine healthcare consumption and costs in different age groups. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed to 400 members of the Endometriosis Association and to 400 randomly selected women with surgically confirmed endometriosis. Official statistics were obtained via correspondence, publications, and database searches. RESULTS: Analysis of the 431 returned questionnaires showed that women under 30 years utilized more inpatient and outpatient care than older women. The mean annual cost among all women was EUR 8,768/woman. The direct healthcare cost of managing the disease was EUR 4,282, while the indirect cost was EUR 4,486. Absence from work was reported by 32% of the women, while 36% reported reduced time at work because of endometriosis. CONCLUSION: Our results confirm the substantial negative effect of endometriosis upon women's lives and their relatively high healthcare consumption.

Elagolix for endometriosis: all that glitters is not gold.

Elagolix, an orally active non-peptidic GnRH antagonist, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the management of moderate to severe pain associated with endometriosis. As the degree of ovarian suppression obtained with elagolix is dose-dependent, pain relief may be achieved by modulating the level of hypo-oestrogenism while limiting side effects. Elagolix may thus be considered a novelty in terms of its endocrine and pharmacological properties but not for its impact on the pathogenic mechanisms of endometriosis, as the target of this new drug is, yet again, alteration of the hormonal milieu. Given the oestrogen-dependent nature of endometriosis, a reduction of side effects may imply a proportionate decrease in pain relief. Furthermore, if low elagolix doses are used, ovulation is not consistently inhibited, and patients should use non-hormonal contraceptive systems and perform serial urine pregnancy tests to rule out unplanned conception during periods of treatment-induced amenorrhoea. If high elagolix doses are used to control severe pain for long periods of time, add-back therapies should be added, similar to that prescribed when using GnRH agonists. To date, the efficacy of elagolix has only been demonstrated in placebo-controlled explanatory trials. Pragmatic trials comparing elagolix with low-dose hormonal contraceptives and progestogens should be planned to verify the magnitude of the incremental benefit, if any, of this GnRH antagonist over currently used standard treatments. The price of elagolix may impact on patient adherence and, hence, on clinical effectiveness. In the USA, the manufacturer AbbVie Inc. priced elagolix (OrilissaTM) at around $10 000 a year, i.e. $845 per month. When faced with unaffordable treatments, some patients may choose to forego care. If national healthcare systems are funded by the tax payer, the approval and the use of a new costly drug to treat a chronic condition, such as endometriosis, means that some finite financial resources will be diverted from other areas, or that similar patients will not receive the same level of care. Thus, defining the overall 'value' of a new drug for endometriosis also has ethical implications, and trade-offs between health outcomes and costs should be carefully weighed up.

Deep endometriosis transvaginal ultrasound in the workup of patients with signs and symptoms of endometriosis: a cost analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Deep endometriosis transvaginal ultrasound (DE TVS) is accurate in the detection of ovarian endometriosis and DE; however, realisation of its full potential and utilisation remains variable. As such, patients may require a two-step surgical approach (diagnostic followed by therapeutic laparoscopy) or experience incomplete surgical treatment. Besides the clinical implications, the economic impact of a two-step approach to diagnosis and treatment on the healthcare system is likely to be significant. We aim to compare the economic costs of two diagnostic models of care for patients with potential endometriosis. DESIGN: Cost analysis using Markov model with 12-month time horizon comparing the economic costs of two diagnostic models. SETTING: The study used a hypothetical population of 1000 women visiting a public tertiary gynaecology clinic. POPULATION: Women with potential endometriosis. Estimates for endometriosis prevalence and severity were drawn from local Australian hospital data. METHODS: The conventional model (M1) includes the basic TVS and diagnostic laparoscopy. The novel model (M2) includes the DE TVS. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to capture the uncertainty in the information used to populate the models. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Changes to government, health-service and patient costs with the adoption of the DE TVS compared with standard diagnostic methods. Costs are given in Australian dollars (AU$) and also in pound sterling (£). RESULTS: The total annual cost of the novel model (M2) is AU$12,547,724.03 (£6,826,673.63), cheaper than the conventional model (M1), which cost AU$13,472,161.67 (£7,329,620.15). CONCLUSIONS: For a population of 1000 women, the integration of the DE TVS may save healthcare costs of AU$924,437 (£502,946.17) annually. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: An endometriosis-focused ultrasound may negate a two-step surgery pathway, including diagnostic surgery, and save healthcare money.

Preliminary insights on the relation between endometriosis, pelvic pain, and employment.

AIMS: The economic burden of endometriosis and pelvic pain involves direct and indirect healthcare costs due to work loss and decreased productivity. However, the relation between endometriosis, pelvic pain, and employment remains underinvestigated. This study aimed at providing preliminary insights into this topic. METHODS: We compared the employment status (having vs. not having a job) in 298 consecutive endometriosis patients and in 332 women without a history of endometriosis (control group). We also examined the association between pelvic pain and employment status. RESULTS: Women with endometriosis were less likely to be employed compared to women without endometriosis (OR 0.508; 95% CI 0.284-0.908; p = 0.022). Women with symptomatic endometriosis were less likely to be employed relative to controls (OR 0.345; 95% CI 0.184-0.650; p = 0.001), as well as to asymptomatic endometriosis patients (OR 0.362; 95% CI 0.167-0.785; p = 0.01). No significant differences emerged between asymptomatic endometriosis and the control group (p > 0.05). Greater severity of dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, chronic pelvic pain, and dyschezia was found in unemployed endometriosis patients (vs. employed endometriosis participants). CONCLUSION: Endometriosis symptoms may significantly affect women's professional life, with important socioeconomic, legal, and political implications. Community-based participatory research is encouraged.

Medical therapy for preventing recurrent endometriosis after conservative surgery: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of different strategies, including gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) and oral contraceptive therapy, for the prevention of endometriosis recurrence after conservative surgery. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis from a health care perspective. SETTING: A health-resource-limited setting in China. POPULATION: Patients who underwent conservative laparoscopic or laparotomic surgery for endometriosis. METHODS: A Markov model was developed for the endometriosis disease course. Clinical data were obtained from published studies. Direct medical costs and resource utilization in the Chinese health care setting were taken into account. The health and economic outcomes were evaluated over a period from treatment initiation to menopause onset. Sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the impact of various parameters and assumptions on the model output. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and costs from a health care perspective. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 6-month GnRH-a therapy compared with no therapy ranged from $6,185 per QALY in deep endometriosis to $6,425 with peritoneal endometriosis. A one-way sensitivity analysis showed considerable influential factors, such as remission rates and utility values. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that 6-month GnRH-a therapy is cost-effective in most cases at a threshold of $7,400/QALY, regardless of the type of endometriosis. CONCLUSION: Six months of therapy with GnRH-a can be a highly cost-effective option for the prevention of endometriosis recurrence. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist is cost effective for the prevention of endometriosis recurrence.

Randomized Trial on Fast Track Care in Colorectal Surgery for Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To study the application of a fast-track care protocol in colorectal surgery for deep infiltrating endometriosis. Bowel endometriosis is an infrequent but not rare condition that often needs intestinal surgery and imposes a high economic burden on society. DESIGN: Prospective randomized trial (Canadian Task Force classification I). SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Two hundred twenty-seven patients with preoperative evidence of bowel endometriosis. INTERVENTIONS: We randomly assigned 227 patients with preoperative evidence of bowel endometriosis to a fast-track protocol (no preoperative bowel preparation, early restoration of diet, no postoperative antibiotics, and early postoperative mobilization) or conventional care for laparoscopic intestinal surgery. Randomization was obtained on a double-blind, date-based schedule, and all procedures were performed by a homogenous group of expert surgeons. Surgical outcomes and a health economic evaluation were assessed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was hospital stay. Patient's well-being and intraoperative and postoperative complications up to 30 days after surgery were also assessed. Subsequently, direct medical costs were analyzed. Patients assigned to the fast-track protocol were discharged earlier (median 3 vs 7 days, p < .001) with no significant differences in subjective well-being (p = .55). Operative details, postoperative complications, and need of temporary ileostomy were similar (p = .89) between groups as well as readmission rates within 30 days (p = .69). The application of a fast-track protocol resulted in an overall significant reduction of costs (USD 6699 vs 8674, p < .01), and differences were more evident in cases of protective stoma (7652 vs 8793, p < .05) and surgery with postoperative complications (10 835 vs 14 005, p < .01). CONCLUSION: The application of a fast-track care protocol for laparoscopy in cases of pelvic and intestinal endometriosis does not increase the risk of complications and ensures a reduction of medical costs.

The direct and indirect costs associated with endometriosis: a systematic literature review.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the economic burden of endometriosis? SUMMARY ANSWER: The identified studies indicate that there is a significant economic burden associated with endometriosis, as observed by both direct and indirect costs. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Two previous systematic literature reviews suggested that there were considerable direct costs associated with endometriosis and there was a general lack of measurement of indirect costs. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a systematic literature review. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 2000 to 2013 were searched. The literature search was limited to human studies of patients with endometriosis. Papers in languages other than English were excluded. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Studies reporting direct or indirect costs among patients with endometriosis were considered for inclusion. Direct costs included inpatient, outpatient, surgery, drug and other healthcare service cost. Indirect costs were related to absenteeism and presenteeism (lost productivity at work). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: After evaluating the 1396 articles in the search results, 12 primary studies that reported direct or indirect costs associated with endometriosis were identified and included in the data extraction. Three of the studies were conducted in the USA, one study each was conducted in Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, Germany and Italy, and two studies included data from 10 countries. Significant variability was observed in the reviewed studies in methodology, including data source, cost components considered and study perspective. Estimates of total direct costs ranged from $1109 per patient per year in Canada to $12 118 per patient per year in the USA. Indirect costs of endometriosis ranged from $3314 per patient per year in Austria to $15 737 per patient per year in the USA. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The studies identified in the systematic literature review varied greatly by study methodology as well as by country owing to different healthcare systems and costs of healthcare services, which contributed to large variations in the direct and indirect cost estimates. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A majority of the studies we found were published after the periods covered in the prior systematic literature reviews, which provided substantial contributions to an understanding of the economic burden of endometriosis, especially in the area of indirect costs. The long-term burden of endometriosis following diagnosis is still under-studied, which is a concern given the chronic nature of the disease and the substantial recurrence of endometriosis symptoms. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was funded by AbbVie, which also develops the oral GnRH antagonist elagolix (in collaboration with Neurocrine Biosciences) for the management of endometriosis and uterine fibroids. A.M.S. is an employee of AbbVie and currently owns AbbVie stocks. H.Y., E.X.D. and C.K. are employees of Analysis Group, Inc., which has received consultancy fees from AbbVie. C.W. is a Clinical Professor at the Department Obstetrics and Gynecology at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, USA and has served in a consulting role to AbbVie for this project.

What is the societal burden of endometriosis-associated symptoms? a prospective Belgian study.

Endometriosis is a complex disease that affects a large number of women of reproductive age and imposes a significant burden on patients and society. The aim of this study was to evaluate diagnosis, comorbidities, healthcare resource use, treatment patterns, costs and quality of life of women with endometriosis seen in a Belgian tertiary care centre. A total of 134 patients were included in a prospective questionnaire-based cost-of-illness study. Patients were diagnosed after a median delay of 2 years after onset of symptoms. Almost all patients reported having at least one comorbidity. Total annual costs per patient were €9872 (95% confidence interval €7930­11,870), with costs of productivity loss representing 75% of total costs. Hospitalizations, surgeries, infertility treatments, pain and anxiety increased total costs significantly (P 0.001). Patients generated an average of 0.82 QaLY over a 1-year time horizon. This study showed that direct and indirect costs attributable to endometriosis-associated symptoms are substantial. Earlier diagnosis and cost-effective treatment of endometriosis may decrease productivity loss, quality of life impairment and healthcare consumption and consequently reduce total costs to patients and society.

Costs of endometriosis in Austria: a survey of direct and indirect costs.

PURPOSE: The literature includes a wealth of medical data on endometriosis, but the economic significance of the condition has so far been neglected. An analysis of hospital costs for endometriosis in Austria was, therefore, carried out for economic purposes. METHODS: Seventy-three patients with endometriosis were included in the study. A bottom-up approach was used to collect data on the average hospital costs of an endometriosis patient over a time period of 1 year. In addition, a prevalence approach was used that allows subsequent estimation of the total costs of endometriosis for the health-care system in Austria for that period. Retrospective questionnaire survey was conducted. RESULTS: The average annual costs of one case of endometriosis are 7,712, with 5,605.55 attributable to direct costs and 2,106.34 to indirect costs. This indicates an overall economic burden of 328 million. In-patient care (45 %) and loss of productivity (27 %) were identified as the major cost factors. The patients themselves pay for 13 % of the costs (through out-of-pocket payments). CONCLUSIONS: This study impressively demonstrates the financial burden on the economy and on each individually affected patient caused by the disease of endometriosis. The massive consumption of resources represents a high level of usage of the medical services provided. The question arises as to whether more timely diagnosis, followed by better-targeted treatment, might have the potential to reduce these costs. The overall economic burden of endometriosis in Austria is currently comparable with that of Parkinson's disease.

The burden of endometriosis: costs and quality of life of women with endometriosis and treated in referral centres.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to calculate costs and health-related quality of life of women with endometriosis-associated symptoms treated in referral centres. METHODS: A prospective, multi-centre, questionnaire-based survey measured costs and quality of life in ambulatory care and in 12 tertiary care centres in 10 countries. The study enrolled women with a diagnosis of endometriosis and with at least one centre-specific contact related to endometriosis-associated symptoms in 2008. The main outcome measures were health care costs, costs of productivity loss, total costs and quality-adjusted life years. Predictors of costs were identified using regression analysis. RESULTS: Data analysis of 909 women demonstrated that the average annual total cost per woman was €9579 (95% confidence interval €8559-€10 599). Costs of productivity loss of €6298 per woman were double the health care costs of €3113 per woman. Health care costs were mainly due to surgery (29%), monitoring tests (19%) and hospitalization (18%) and physician visits (16%). Endometriosis-associated symptoms generated 0.809 quality-adjusted life years per woman. Decreased quality of life was the most important predictor of direct health care and total costs. Costs were greater with increasing severity of endometriosis, presence of pelvic pain, presence of infertility and a higher number of years since diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Our study invited women to report resource use based on endometriosis-associated symptoms only, rather than drawing on a control population of women without endometriosis. Our study showed that the economic burden associated with endometriosis treated in referral centres is high and is similar to other chronic diseases (diabetes, Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis). It arises predominantly from productivity loss, and is predicted by decreased quality of life.

Costs of in-patient treatment for endometriosis in Germany 2006: an analysis based on the G-DRG-Coding.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the financial burden of in-patients costs for endometriosis treatment in Germany in 2006. METHODS: Data from a national in-patient database for women of reproductive age who were admitted for surgical treatment for endometriosis were analysed retrospectively. The number and type of hospital admissions involving surgical interventions for endometriosis were identified, and the costs of these hospitalizations to funding bodies in Germany were estimated using the diagnosis-related group reimbursement rates. RESULTS: A total of 20,835 patients were admitted to hospital for endometriosis treatment in Germany in 2006 (1.27 per 1,000 women in reproductive age). The average cost per patient was estimated at 3,056.21 €. The total in-patient costs for endometriosis treatment in 2006 were estimated at 40,708,716.26 €. The surgical procedure most often performed in treating endometriosis was hysterectomy (in 24.70% of cases). CONCLUSION: The burden of admissions and the economic impact associated with the inpatients treatment of endometriosis in Germany is substantial. The results presented here may enable those responsible in the field of medicine and health-care policy to improve the allocation of resources and manage expenses on a more sustained basis.

Non-health-care costs associated with endometriosis.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to quantify the non-health-care costs of endometriosis in a sample of Belgian patients over a 30-month period. METHODS: A longitudinal study enrolled patients who underwent surgical treatment for endometriosis in University Hospitals Leuven. Self-reported patient questionnaires measured costs at 1 month prior to surgical treatment and at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months following treatment. The number of days of work absence was valued using gross monthly income to estimate costs of productivity loss. Analysis included patient expenditure on support with household activities. The costs per patient over 6 months were obtained by linear extrapolation. RESULTS: Of 394 eligible patients, 180 participated in the study (response rate of 46%). The highest productivity loss was incurred during the 6 months preceding surgical treatment (€1514 ± 2576) and the 6 months following treatment (€2496 ± 4144). Mean costs dropped to €115-€225 during the following 6-month periods. Similarly, costs of support with household activities peaked during the 6 months preceding surgical treatment (€982 ± 908) and during the subsequent 6 months (€981 ± 1085), after which they dropped to €500-€675 during the following 6-month periods. Patients with severe endometriosis (Stage IV) (€4943) had higher total non-health-care costs over the 30-month period than patients with minimal-to-moderate endometriosis (Stages I-III) (€4510) (P = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: As our study did not include a control population of women without endometriosis, patients were asked to report non-health-care costs associated with endometriosis only. Results show that the highest non-health-care costs associated with endometriosis are incurred during the 6 months prior to and following surgical treatment.

Economic burden of surgically confirmed endometriosis in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the societal economic burden of illness caused by surgically confirmed endometriosis in Canada in 2009, including direct health care costs, lost productivity, and lost leisure time costs. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, direct health care resource use data were obtained from nine family physicians and nine gynaecologists from across Canada, who were experienced in the treatment of women with surgically confirmed endometriosis. Data on alternative treatments and health care providers, as well as work absenteeism, lost leisure time, and caregiver time were obtained from a convenience sample of 27 women with endometriosis treated at two gynaecology clinics in Alberta and Quebec. Unit costs were assigned to resource use items for treatment-seeking patients, and total costs for each resource use item were aggregated to estimate the societal costs of endometriosis in Canada in 2009, across all prevalent cases of surgically confirmed endometriosis. RESULTS: The estimated mean annual societal cost of endometriosis was $5,200 per patient (95% CI $3,700 to $7,100), with lost productivity and lost leisure time costs accounting for 78%. Extrapolating these figures yields an estimated total annual cost to Canadian society of $1.8 billion (95% CI $1.3 billion to $2.4 billion) attributable to surgically confirmed endometriosis in Canada. CONCLUSION: For some women, surgically confirmed endometriosis has a substantial negative impact that can result in suffering to the individual and her family, and lead to substantial productivity losses. Understanding the interplay between direct costs, lost productivity, and quality of life is critical for accurately identifying and evaluating effective treatments for this condition.

Endometriosis cost assessment (the EndoCost study): a cost-of-illness study protocol.

AIMS: The EndoCost study aims to calculate the costs of endometriosis from a societal perspective. METHODS: This multicentre, prevalence-based cost-of-illness analysis aggregates data on endometriosis costs and quality of life from a prospective hospital questionnaire and from both retrospective and prospective patient questionnaires. The EndoCost study comprises 12 representative tertiary care centres involved in the care of women with endometriosis in 10 countries. The sample includes patients with a laparoscopic and/or histological diagnosis of endometriosis and with at least 1 patient contact related to endometriosis during 2008. The EndoCost study measures direct healthcare costs (e.g. costs of medication, physician visits), direct non-healthcare costs (e.g. transportation costs), and indirect costs of productivity loss. Cost questions are developed specifically for the purpose of the EndoCost study. Quality of life is measured using the EuroQol-5D and relevant parts of the Global Study of Women's Health instruments. Both aggregate analyses and country-specific analyses are planned for total costs per patient. Costs are broken down into cost drivers and into the various payers that incur costs. CONCLUSIONS: The cost estimates provided by the EndoCost cost-of-illness analysis may be used to justify the prioritisation of future research in endometriosis.

[Economics analysis of endometriosis and adenomyosis surgeries].

OBJECTIVE: To explore the hospital expenses and hospital stay of surgical management for endometriosis and adenomyosis. METHODS: The average hospital expenses and average hospital stay were compared for a total of 12003 patients of endometriosis and adenomyosis confirmed operatively at our hospital from January 1994 to December 2008. And the relevant factors consisted of surgical phases, pathological types, surgical approaches, surgical routes, definite procedures and age groups. RESULTS: The average hospital expenses were significantly higher than average gynecologic surgical expenses (RMB 7073 vs RMB 6847, P < 0.01) while and the average hospital stays significantly shorter than the latter (6.8 vs 8.6 days, P < 0.01). The periods of 2006 - 2008 and 1994 - 1996 had significantly different average hospital expenses (RMB 7853 vs RMB 3382, P < 0.01) and average hospital stay (6.4 vs 9.5 days, P < 0.01). Multivariate analysis showed age was the most important correlated factor for the hospital expenses of endometriosis and adenomyosis surgeries (all P < 0.01). And surgical approach was one of the most important factors for hospital stay (all P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Adenomyosis has the highest cost and younger endometriosis patients carry the lowest economic burden. Laparoscopy and conservative surgery may reduce the economic burden of endometriosis and adenomyosis operations.

Stepwise Approach to the Management of Endometriosis-Related Dysmenorrhea: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of sequential medical and surgical therapy for the treatment of endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was created to compare three stepwise medical and surgical treatment strategies compared with immediate surgical management for dysmenorrhea using a health care payor perspective. A theoretical study cohort was derived from the estimated number of reproductive age (18-45) women in the United States with endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea. The treatment strategies modeled were: strategy 1) nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) followed by surgery; strategy 2) NSAIDs, then short-acting reversible contraceptives or long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) followed by surgery; strategy 3) NSAIDs, then a short-acting reversible contraceptive or LARC, then a LARC or gonadotropin-releasing hormone modulator followed by surgery; strategy 4) proceeding directly to surgery. Probabilities, utilities, and costs were derived from the literature. Outcomes included cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Univariate, bivariate, and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In this theoretical cohort of 4,817,894 women with endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea, all medical and surgical treatment strategies were cost effective at a standard willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained when compared with surgery alone. Strategy 2 was associated with the lowest cost per QALY gained ($1,155). Requiring a trial of a third medication before surgery would cost an additional $257 million, compared with proceeding to surgery after failing two medical treatments. The probability of improvement with surgery would need to exceed 83% for this to be the preferred first-line approach. CONCLUSION: All sequential medical and surgical management strategies for endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea were cost effective when compared with surgery alone. A trial of hormonal management after NSAIDs, before proceeding to surgery, may provide cost savings. Delaying surgical management in an individual with pain refractory to more than three medications may decrease quality of life and increase cost.

Healthcare utilization and cost burden among women with endometriosis by opioid prescription status in the first year after diagnosis: a retrospective claims database analysis.

Aims: Opioids do not represent standard therapy for endometriosis; however, women with endometriosis are frequently prescribed an opioid to manage related abdominal or pelvic pain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of opioid use on endometriosis-related economic and healthcare burden in the United States.Materials and methods: We performed a retrospective, propensity-matched cohort analysis of the Truven MarketScan Commercial database from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2016. Eligible women had at least 1 inpatient or 2 outpatient codes for endometriosis and 12 months of continuous enrollment before and after the index date (i.e. first recorded endometriosis diagnosis). The primary analysis examined healthcare costs and utilization for 12 months after the index date in women who filled at least 1 opioid prescription versus those who did not. The secondary analysis examined healthcare costs and utilization by the pattern of opioid use.Results: The primary analysis matched 43,516 women across 2 groups and the secondary analysis matched 13,230 women across 5 groups. In the primary analysis, total 12-month healthcare costs were significantly higher in the opioid group compared to the non-opioid group ($29,236.00 vs. $18,466.00, respectively; p < .001); the same pattern was observed for all healthcare utilization parameters. In the secondary analysis, higher morphine equivalent daily dose and proportion of days covered were associated with the highest healthcare costs and utilization compared to the non-opioid group.Limitations: Retrospective design and inability to confirm whether filled opioid prescriptions were actually taken.Conclusions: Filling an opioid prescription within 1 year after an endometriosis diagnosis was associated with significant excess healthcare burden. Patients prescribed an opioid may experience inadequate symptom management and benefit from the use of disease-specific, non-opioid therapies.

The impact of high-risk and chronic opioid use among commercially insured endometriosis patients on health care resource utilization and costs in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate all-cause and endometriosis-related health care resource utilization and costs among newly diagnosed endometriosis patients with high-risk versus low-risk opioid use or patients with chronic versus non-chronic opioid use. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of IBM MarketScan® Commercial Claims data from 2009 to 2018 was performed for females aged 18 to 49 with newly diagnosed endometriosis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition code: 617.xx; International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition code: N80.xx). Two sub-cohorts were identified: high-risk (⩾1 day with ⩾90 morphine milligram equivalents per day or ⩾1-day concomitant benzodiazepine use) or chronic opioid utilization (⩾90-day supply prescribed or ⩾10 opioid prescriptions). High-risk or chronic utilization was evaluated during the 12-month assessment period after the index date. Index date was the first opioid prescription within 12 months following endometriosis diagnosis. All outcomes were assessed over 12-month post-assessment period while adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Out of 61,019 patients identified, 18,239 had high-risk opioid use and 5001 chronic opioid use. Health care resource utilization drivers were outpatient visits and pharmacy fills, which were higher among high-risk versus low-risk patients (outpatient visits: 17.49 vs 15.51; pharmacy fills: 19.58 vs 16.88, p < 0.0001). Chronic opioid users had a higher number of outpatient visits (19.53 vs 15.00, p < 0.0001) and pharmacy fills (23.18 vs 16.43, p < 0.0001) compared to non-chronic opioid users. High-risk opioid users had significantly higher all-cause health care costs compared to low-risk opioid users (US$16,377 vs US$13,153; p < 0.0001). Chronic opioid users also had significantly higher all-cause health care costs compared to non-chronic opioid users (US$20,930 vs US$12,272; p < 0.0001). Similar patterns were observed among endometriosis-related HCRU, except pharmacy fills among high-risk and chronic sub-cohorts. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates significantly higher all-cause and endometriosis-related health care resource utilization and total costs for high-risk opioid users compared to low-risk opioid users among newly diagnosed endometriosis patients over 1 year. Similar trends were observed for comparing chronic opioid users with non-chronic opioid users, except for endometriosis-related pharmacy fills and associated costs.