Cost-utility of levonorgestrel intrauterine system compared with hysterectomy and second generation endometrial ablative techniques in managing patients with menorrhagia in the UK

Objective:To estimate the cost-utility of levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS; Mirena*) compared to second generation endometrial ablative techniques [i.e. microwave endometrial ablation (MEA) and thermal balloon endometrial ablation (TBEA)] and hysterectomy in the UK. Methods: Clinical and utility data from a 5-year randomised controlled trial comparing LNG-IUS with hysterectomy were combined with further data from published studies to construct a state -transition (Markov) model. The model depicted the movement of patients between health states over 5 years following treatment for menorrhagia. The model was used to estimate the cost-utility of LNG-IUS followed by ablation (L-A); LNG-IUS followed by hysterectomy (L-H); immediate ablation (MEA or TBEA) and immediate hysterectomy in the UK at 2004/2005 prices, from the perspective of the UK's National Health Service (NHS). Main outcome measures and results: The expected 5-yearly cost of treating menorrhagia with LA L-H, TBEA, MEA and hysterectomy was estimated to be 828 pound, 1355 pound, 1679 pound, 1812 pound and 2983 pound per patient respectively and the expected level of health gain to be 4.14, 4.12, 4.13, 4.13 and 4.01 QALYs per patient respectively. LNG-IUS followed by ablation dominated all the alternative treatments. Hysterectomy was dominated by the alternative treatments. Sensitivity analysis found the model to be sensitive to the quality of life data used. Conclusion: Within the model's limitations, LNGIUS followed by ablation appears to offer the NHS a cost-effective treatment for menorrhagia, when compared to immediate surgery, affording the NHS a less expensive treatment modality without detrimental effects on resulting health gain.