The levonorgestrel intrauterine system for prevention of endometrial cancer in women with obesity: A cost-effectiveness study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) as an endometrial cancer prevention strategy in women with obesity. METHODS: A Markov decision-analytic model was used to compare 5 strategies in women with a body mass index of 30 or greater: 1) Usual care 2) LNG-IUS for 5 years 3) LNG-IUS for 7 years 4) LNG-IUS for 5 years, replaced once for a total of 10 years 5) LNG-IUS for 7 years, replaced once for a total of 14 years. Obesity was presumed to be associated with a 3-fold relative risk of endometrial cancer incidence and a 2.65-fold disease-specific mortality. The LNG-IUS was assumed to confer a 50% reduction in cancer incidence over the period of the LNG-IUS insertion. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, calculated in 2019 Canadian dollars (CAD) per year of life saved. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The LNG-IUS strategy was considered cost-effective if the cost of the intervention is less than $66,400 CAD ($50,000 US dollars) per year of life saved. The strategy becomes cost-effective if the LNG-IUS is inserted at age 57 (strategy #2), at age 52 for strategy #3, at age 51 for strategy #4 and at age 45 for strategy #5, when compared to usual care. The results are stable to variations in cost but sensitive to the estimated risk reduction of the LNG-IUS and the impact of obesity on endometrial cancer incidence and disease-specific mortality. CONCLUSION: The LNG-IUS is a cost-effective method of endometrial cancer prevention in women with obesity.

Free-of-charge long-acting reversible contraception: two-year discontinuation, its risk factors, and reasons.

BACKGROUND: Since 2013, the residents of the city of Vantaa, Finland, have been offered their first long-acting reversible contraceptive method (levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, implant, and copper intrauterine device) free of charge. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to assess the 2-year cumulative discontinuation rates of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods when provided free of charge for first-time users in a real-world setting. Additional aims were to describe factors associated with discontinuation and to evaluate the reasons for discontinuation. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective register-based cohort study of 2026 nonsterilized women aged 15 to 44 years, who initiated a free-of-charge long-acting contraceptive method in 2013-2014 in the city of Vantaa. Removals within 2 years after method initiation and reasons for discontinuation were obtained from electronic health records and from national registers. We calculated the 2-year cumulative incidence rates of discontinuation with 95% confidence intervals for each method. Furthermore, we assessed crude and adjusted incidence rate ratios of discontinuation with 95% confidence interval by Poisson regression models comparing implants and copper intrauterine device with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems. RESULTS: During the 2 -year follow-up, 514 women discontinued, yielding a cumulative discontinuation rate of 28.3 per 100 women-years (95% confidence interval, 26.2-30.4). Among the 1199 women who initiated the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, the cumulative discontinuation rate was 24.2 per 100 women-years (95% confidence interval, 21.7-26.9); among the 642 implant users, 33.3 per 100 women-years (95% confidence interval, 29.5-37.4); and among the 185 copper intrauterine device users, 37.8 per 100 women-years (95% confidence interval, 31.0-45.7). Compared with women aged 30 to 44 years, women aged 15 to 19 years (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.14) and 20 to 29 years (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.63) were more likely to discontinue. We observed a higher discontinuation rate in women who had given birth within the previous year (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.65), spoke a native language other than Finnish or Swedish (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.63), and had a history of a sexually transmitted infection (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.46). No association was found in marital status, overall parity, history of induced abortion, socioeconomic status, education level, or smoking status. The most common reason for discontinuation was bleeding disturbances, reported by 21% of women who discontinued the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, by 71% who discontinued the implant, and by 41% who discontinued the copper intrauterine device. One in 4 women who discontinued the copper intrauterine device reported heavy menstrual bleeding, whereas only 1% who discontinued the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and none who discontinued implants reported this reason. Abdominal pain was the reported reason for discontinuation in 20% of both intrauterine device users and in only 2% who discontinued implants. CONCLUSION: At 2 years, the use of implants and copper intrauterine devices was more likely to be discontinued than that of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Women younger than 30 years and those who gave birth in the preceding year, spoke a native language other than Finnish or Swedish, or had a history of sexually transmitted infections were more likely to discontinue. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system was least likely to be removed owing to bleeding disturbances.

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.

Evaluation of quality of life and cost-effectiveness of definitive surgery and the levonorgestrel intrauterine system as treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding.

BACKGROUND/AIM: This study aimed to compare the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) with abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) as first-line treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight patients aged 20-55 years who complained of regular heavy menstrual bleeding were enrolled in the study. The TAH group included 29 patients, the LNG-IUS group included 34, and the TLH group included 35. These groups were compared in terms of quality of life and the cost-effectiveness of the selected methods. Quality of life was assessed using the 36-Item Short Form (SF-36), and cost-effectiveness was assessed according to the current cost of each approach. RESULTS: The quality of life parameters, with the exception of mental health, improved significantly in the LNG-IUS, TAH, and TLH groups. The mean costs of the LNG-IUS, TAH, and TLH procedures were $99.15 ± 4.90, $538.82 ± 193.00 and $1617.05 ± 258.44, respectively (P < 0.05). Overall, LNG-IUS was the most cost-effective treatment option. CONCLUSION: The outcome measures of the SF-36 revealed that after 6 months, these treatments were equal in terms of quality of life, except for mental health. LNG-IUS was the most cost-effective approach.

Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device as an Endometrial Cancer Prevention Strategy in Obese Women: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device (IUD) as an endometrial cancer prevention strategy in obese women. METHODS: A modified Markov model was used to compare IUD placement at age 50 with usual care among women with a body mass index (BMI, kg/m) 40 or greater or BMI 30 or greater. The effects of obesity on incidence and survival were incorporated. The IUD was assumed to confer a 50% reduction in cancer incidence over 5 years. Costs of IUD and cancer care were included. Clinical outcomes were cancer diagnosis and deaths from cancer. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated in 2015 U.S. dollars per year of life saved. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo probabilistic analyses were performed. RESULTS: For a 50 year old with BMI 40 or greater, the IUD strategy is costlier and more effective than usual care with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $74,707 per year of life saved. If the protective effect of the levonorgestrel IUD is assumed to be 10 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio decreases to $37,858 per year of life saved. In sensitivity analysis, a levonorgestrel IUD that reduces cancer incidence by at least 68% in women with BMIs of 40 or greater or costs less than $500 is potentially cost-effective. For BMI 30 or greater, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of IUD strategy is $137,223 per year of life saved compared with usual care. In Monte Carlo analysis, IUD placement for BMI 40 or greater is cost-effective in 50% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per year of life saved. CONCLUSION: The levonorgestrel IUD is a potentially cost-effective strategy for prevention of deaths from endometrial cancer in obese women.

Cost-effectiveness analysis in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and costs associated with first-line medical treatments for chronic heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) in Spain. STUDY DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) with the estradiol valerate/dienogest multiphase oral contraceptive (E2V/DNG), combined oral contraceptives (COC) and progestins (PROG). Study patients were fertile women diagnosed with HMB who initially wished to remain fertile. A Markov model based on reported clinical data and the opinion of a panel of experts was used. The time horizon of the analysis was 5 years. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS), discounting both costs (€ 2013) and future effects at an annual rate of 3%. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: In the analysis at 5 years, the LNG-IUS was associated with a gain of 0.67, 2.22, and 3.53 symptoms free months (SFM) compared with E2V/DNG, COC and PROG, respectively. LNG-IUS contributed more quality-adjusted life months (QALM) than the other treatment alternatives (+1.74 vs. E2V/DNG, +3.33 vs. COC +3.53 vs. PROG). First-line LNG-IUS treatment resulted in savings of € 583, € 988, and € 1891 vs. E2V/DNG, COC and PROG, respectively. These cost benefits, coupled with the greater clinical benefits in terms of SFM and QALM, show that LNG-IUS is the dominant option (less costly and more effective). CONCLUSION: LNG-IUS is the medical treatment of choice and cost-saving option for the control of HMB in Spain.

The cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for the treatment of idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Heavy menstrual bleeding negatively impacts the health and quality of life of about 18 million women in the United States. Although some studies have established the clinical effectiveness of heavy menstrual bleeding treatments, few have evaluated their cost-effectiveness. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) compared with other therapies for idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding. METHODS: We developed a model comparing the clinical and economic outcomes (from a US payer perspective) of three broad initial treatment strategies over 5 years: LNG-IUS, oral agents, or surgery. Up to three nonsurgical treatment lines, followed by up to two surgical lines, were allowed; unintended pregnancy was possible, and women could discontinue any time during nonsurgical treatments. Menstrual blood loss of 80 ml or more per cycle determined treatment failure. RESULTS: Initiating treatment with LNG-IUS resulted in the fewest hysterectomies (6 per 1000 women), the most quality-adjusted life-years (3.78), and the lowest costs ($1137) among all the nonsurgical strategies. Initiating treatment with LNG-IUS was also less costly than surgery, resulted in fewer hysterectomies (vs. 9 per 1000 for ablation) but was associated with fewer quality-adjusted life-years gained per patient (vs. 3.80 and 3.88 for ablation and hysterectomy, respectively). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS: LNG-IUS resulted in the lowest treatment costs and the fewest number of hysterectomies performed over 5 years compared with all other initial strategies and resulted in the most quality-adjusted life-years gained among nonsurgical options. Initial treatment with LNG-IUS is the least costly and most effective option for women desiring to preserve their fertility.

The benefits and risks of using a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for contraception.

The contraceptive profile of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS; Mirena®) is well established, with efficacy similar to that achieved with sterilization and rapid return to fertility after discontinuation of use. The LNG-IUS is typically associated with transient menstrual disturbance during the first few months of use, but this usually settles with continued use, with a concomitant decrease in menstrual blood loss. Overall, the safety profile of the LNG-IUS has been well established across a wide population of women, and the available data do not suggest that the LNG-IUS adversely affects bone health or increase the risk of adverse cardiovascular events or breast and uterine cancers. This article reviews the literature to provide updated information on the risks and benefits associated with the LNG-IUS, particularly focusing on its use in contraception.

Intrauterine contraceptives: a review of uses, side effects, and candidates.

This article reviews the two intrauterine devices (IUDs) available in the United States: the TCu380A, marketed as ParaGard (Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Pomona, NY), and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS), marketed as Mirena (Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Wayne, NJ). The properties of the two devices are detailed, as well as noncontraceptive indications and appropriate candidates for use. Studies consistently demonstrate that the devices are safe, effective, and provide cost savings when compared with other reversible methods. The TCu380A may be used as postcoital contraception with close to 100% effectiveness. Menstrual blood loss is likely to increase with the TCu380A and decrease with the LNG-IUS. Reduction in menstrual blood loss and endometrial suppression make the LNG-IUS an increasingly popular treatment for menorrhagia, endometriosis, adenomyosis, and as an adjunct to estrogen therapy. IUDs may be inserted immediately after a first- or second-trimester abortion, immediately postpartum, and >or=4 weeks postpartum. Candidacy for IUDs has expanded, and includes nulliparous women, adolescents, and women with immunocompromised conditions including HIV.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system vs. endometrial thermal ablation for menorrhagia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of a Levonorgestrel-releasing Intrauterine System (LNG-IUS) in controlling menorrhagia in comparison with endometrial thermal rollerball ablation. DESIGN: Seventy-nine consecutive patients with menorrhagia underwent either LNG-IUS insertion (n=42) or hysteroscopical endometrial thermal rollerball ablation (n=37) in a prospective, observational, comparative study. Women reported duration of uterine bleeding in days prior to, and six and 12 months after each intervention. Prior to each intervention, endometrial, cervical or other pathological conditions of the genital tract were excluded. GnRH analogues for endometrial suppression were given for ten weeks before endometrial ablation but not prior to LNG-IUS insertion. RESULTS: There were no differences in duration of uterine bleeding before each intervention in the two groups. The duration of uterine bleeding was lower in the LNG-IUS group as compared with endometrial ablation at six (p<0.001) and 12 months (p<0.001) after each intervention. Furthermore, the effect on reduction of bleeding was stronger in the LNG-IUS group as compared with the endometrial ablation group at six (p<0.001) and 12 months (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The LNG-IUS was more efficacious than endometrial thermal ablation in reducing duration of uterine bleeding at six and 12 months post-intervention.

Managing drug-resistant essential menorrhagia without hysterectomy.

Menorrhagia is a common disorder that requires plenty of resources. Rapid developments in medical technology have resulted in new management strategies, which are true alternatives to hysterectomy. In many countries the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and endometrial destruction techniques are available for menorrhagia. Clinicians must answer questions about cost, effectiveness and quality of medical care when choosing the treatment option. This review integrates the results from the latest studies and review articles about LNG-IUS and endometrial destruction techniques by addressing the key clinical issues in menorrhagia. Both LNG-IUS and endometrial ablation seem to be good and effective alternative options to hysterectomy. Although these treatments have relatively high failure rates, the majority of women are satisfied and the cost-effectiveness of these treatments are better than that of hysterectomy. Both treatments have their advantages and disadvantages. Thus far LNG-IUS seems to be more cost-effective than endometrial resection or hysterectomy at 5 years follow-up. However, second generation ablation techniques may offer better cost-effectiveness than the first generation techniques, but the evidence is insufficient.

A cost-utility analysis of hysterectomy, endometrial resection and ablation and medical therapy for menorrhagia.

BACKGROUND: Four types of treatment [hysterectomy, endometrial resection/ablation, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and oral medical therapy] are available for management of menorrhagia. The objective of this study was to compare the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained by these four treatment alternatives. METHODS: A Markov model was designed to simulate the healthcare resource utilization and QALYs of the four treatment alternatives for patients presenting with menorrhagia over 5 years. Clinical inputs were estimated from literature, and the cost analysis was conducted from the perspective of healthcare provider in Hong Kong. RESULTS: The base-case analysis showed that the hysterectomy group was the most effective (4.725 QALYs) alternative with the highest cost (USD6878, 1USD=7.8HKD). The incremental cost per additional QALY (ICER) gained by hysterectomy was USD23 500. The probability of extra surgery in the endometrial resection/ablation was an influential factor. Probabalistic sensitivity analysis of 10,000 simulations of the Monte Carlo model showed that the hysterectomy group gained higher number of QALYs than the LNG-IUS, oral medical treatment and endometrial resection/ablation groups, 99, 99 and 98% of the time, and it was more costly than the other three groups over 85% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: Hysterectomy appears to be cost effective, with ICER less than USD50,000, for management of menorrhagia.

Clinical outcomes and costs with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or hysterectomy for treatment of menorrhagia: randomized trial 5-year follow-up.

CONTEXT: Because menorrhagia is often a reason for seeking medical attention, it is important to consider outcomes and costs associated with alternative treatment modalities. Both the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and hysterectomy have proven effective for treatment of menorrhagia but there are no long-term comparative studies measuring cost and quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes, quality-of-life issues, and costs of the LNG-IUS vs hysterectomy in the treatment of menorrhagia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized controlled trial conducted between October 1, 1994, and October 6, 2002, and enrolling 236 women (mean [SD] age, 43 [3.4] years) referred to 5 university hospitals in Finland for complaints of menorrhagia. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to treatment with the LNG-IUS (n = 119) or hysterectomy (n = 117) and were monitored for 5 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Health-related quality of life (HRQL) as measured by the 5-Dimensional EuroQol and the RAND 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, other measures of psychosocial well-being (anxiety, depression, and sexual function), and costs. RESULTS: After 5 years of follow-up, 232 women (99%) were analyzed for the primary outcomes. The 2 groups did not differ substantially in terms of HRQL or psychosocial well-being. Although 50 (42%) of the women assigned to the LNG-IUS group eventually underwent hysterectomy, the discounted direct and indirect costs in the LNG-IUS group (2817 dollars [95% confidence interval, 2222 dollars-3530 dollars] per participant) remained substantially lower than in the hysterectomy group (4660 dollars [95% confidence interval, 4014 dollars-5180 dollars]). Satisfaction with treatment was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: By providing improvement in HRQL at relatively low cost, the LNG-IUS may offer a wider availability of choices for the patient and may decrease costs due to interventions involving surgery.