Comparison of Levonorgestrel-releasing Intrauterine System (LNG-IUS) against Laparoscopic Assisted Supracervical Hysterectomy (LASH) for menorrhagia treatment: An economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: This economic evaluation and literature review was conducted with the primary aim to compare the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic assisted supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) with NICE's gold-standard treatment of Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) for menorrhagia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted from an NHS perspective, using data from two European studies to compare the treatments. Individual costs and benefits were assessed within one year of having the intervention. An Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was calculated, followed by sensitivity analysis. Expected Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYS) and costs to the NHS were calculated alongside health net benefits (HNB) and monetary net benefits (MNB). RESULTS: A QALY gain of 0.069 was seen in use of LNG-IUS compared to LASH. This yielded a MNB between -£44.99 and -£734.99, alongside a HNB between -0.0705 QALYs and -0.106 QALYS. Using a £20,000-£30,000/QALY limit outlined by NICE,this showed the LNG-IUS to be more cost-effective than LASH, with LASH exceeding the upper bound of the £30,000/QALY limit. Sensitivity analysis lowered the ICER below the given threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The ICER demonstrates it would not be cost-effective to replace the current gold-standard LNG-IUS with LASH, when treating menorrhagia in the UK. The ICER's proximity to the threshold and its high sensitivity alludes to the necessity for further research to generate a more reliable cost-effectiveness estimate. However, LASH could be considered as a first line treatment option in women with no desire to have children.

Can birth outcome inequality be reduced using targeted caseload midwifery in a deprived diverse inner city population? A retrospective cohort study, London, UK.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To report maternal and newborn outcomes of pregnant women in areas of social deprivation in inner city London. (2) To compare the effect of caseload midwifery with standard care on maternal and newborn outcomes in this cohort of women. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Four council wards (electoral districts) in inner city London, where over 90% of residents are in the two most deprived quintiles of the English Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) (2019) and the population is ethnically diverse. PARTICIPANTS: All women booked for antenatal care under Guys and St Thomas' National Health Service Foundation Trust after 11 July 2018 (when the Lambeth Early Action Partnership (LEAP*) caseload midwifery team was implemented) until data collection 18 June 2020. This included 523 pregnancies in the LEAP area, of which 230 were allocated to caseload midwifery, and 8430 pregnancies from other areas. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To explore if targeted caseload midwifery (known to reduce preterm birth) will improve important measurable outcomes (preterm birth, mode of birth and newborn outcomes). RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in preterm birth rate in women allocated to caseload midwifery, when compared with those who received traditional midwifery care (5.1% vs 11.2%; risk ratio: 0.41; p=0.02; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.86; number needed to treat: 11.9). Caesarean section births were significantly reduced in women allocated to caseload midwifery care, when compared with traditional midwifery care (24.3% vs 38.0%; risk ratio: 0.64: p=0.01; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.90; number needed to treat: 7.4) including emergency caesarean deliveries (15.2% vs 22.5%; risk ratio: 0.59; p=0.03; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.94; number needed to treat: 10) without increase in neonatal unit admission or stillbirth. CONCLUSION: This study shows that a model of caseload midwifery care implemented in an inner city deprived community improves outcome by significantly reducing preterm birth and birth by caesarean section when compared with traditional care. This data trend suggests that when applied to targeted groups (women in higher IMD quintile and women of diverse ethnicity) that the impact of intervention is greater.