Cost comparison between uterine-sparing fibroid treatments one year following treatment

Journal of Therapeutic Ultrasound

Elizabeth A Stewart³  James P Moriarty¹  Teresa B Gibson⁴  Brian J Moore⁴  Ginger S Carls⁴  Bijan J Borah² 

[1] Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA;Division of Health Care Policy and Research & College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA;Division of Reproductive Endocrinology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minnesota, USA;Truven Health Analytics, 777 E. Eisenhower Parkway, Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA

关键词: Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS);    Uterine fibroids;    Uterine artery embolization (UAE);    Myomectomy;    Healthcare costs;   

Others  :  800956
DOI  :  10.1186/2050-5736-2-7

 received in 2013-10-21, accepted in 2014-01-31,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

To compare one-year all-cause and uterine fibroid (UF)-related direct costs in patients treated with one of the following three uterine-sparing procedures: magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS), uterine artery embolization (UAE) and myomectomy.

Methods

This retrospective observational cohort study used healthcare claims for several million individuals with healthcare coverage from employers in the MarketScan Database for the period 2003–2010. UF patients aged 25–54 on their first UF procedure (index) date with 366-day baseline experience, 366-day follow-up period, continuous health plan enrollment during baseline and follow-up, and absence of any baseline UF procedures were included in the final sample. Cost outcomes were measured by allowed charges (sum of insurer-paid and patient-paid amounts). UF-related cost was defined as difference in mean cost between study cohorts and propensity-score-matched control cohorts without UF. Multivariate adjustment of cost outcomes was conducted using generalized linear models.

Results

The study sample comprised 14,426 patients (MRgFUS = 14; UAE = 4,092; myomectomy = 10,320) with a higher percent of older patients in MRgFUS cohort (71% vs. 50% vs. 12% in age-group 45–54, P < 0.001). Adjusted all-cause mean cost was lowest for MRgFUS ($19,763; 95% CI: $10,425-$38,694) followed by myomectomy ($20,407; 95% CI: $19,483-$21,381) and UAE ($25,019; 95% CI: $23,738-$26,376) but without statistical significance. Adjusted UF-related costs were also not significantly different between the three procedures.

Conclusions

Adjusted all-cause and UF-related costs at one year were not significantly different between patients undergoing MRgFUS, myomectomy and UAE.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Borah et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Hartmann KE, Birnbaum H, Ben-Hamadi R, Wu EQ, Farrell MH, Spalding J, et al.: Annual costs associated with diagnosis of uterine leiomyomata. Obstet Gynecol 2006, 108(4):930-7. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000234651.41000.58
• [2]Stewart EA: Uterine fibroids. Lancet 2001, 357(9252):293-8. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03622-9
• [3]Gliklich RE, Leavy MB, Velentgas P, Campion DM, Mohr P, Sabharwal R, Whicher D, Myers ER, Nicholson WK: Identification of Future Research Needs in the Comparative Management of Uterine Fibroid Disease. A Report on the Priority-Setting Process, Preliminary Data Analysis, and Research Plan.. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011. Effective Healthcare Research Report No. 31. (Prepared by the Outcome DEcIDE Center, under Contract No. HHSA 290-2005-0035-I, TO5). AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC023-EF. Available at: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm webcite
• [4]Goodwin SC, Spies JB: Uterine fibroid embolization. N Engl J Med 2009, 361(7):690-7. doi:10.1056/NEJMct0806942
• [5]Hildreth CJ, Lynm C, Glass RM: JAMA patient page, Uterine fibroids. JAMA 2009, 301(1):122. doi:10.1001/jama.301.1.122
• [6]Cardozo ER, Clark AD, Banks NK, Henne MB, Stegmann BJ, Segars JH: The estimated annual cost of uterine leiomyomata in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012, 206(3):211-e1-9. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2011.12.002
• [7]Lee DW, Ozminkowski RJ, Carls GS, Wang S, Gibson TB, Stewart EA: The direct and indirect cost burden of clinically significant and symptomatic uterine fibroids. J Occup Environ Med 2007, 49(5):493-506. doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e31805f6cf2
• [8]Funaki K, Fukunishi H, Sawada K: Clinical outcomes of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery for uterine myomas: 24-month follow-up. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009, 34(5):584-9. doi:10.1002/uog.7455
• [9]Hesley GK, Felmlee JP, Gebhart JB, Dunagan KT, Gorny KR, Kesler JB, et al.: Noninvasive treatment of uterine fibroids: early Mayo Clinic experience with magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound. Mayo Clin Proc 2006, 81(7):936-42.
• [10]Hesley GK, Gorny KR, Henrichsen TL, Woodrum DA, Brown DL: A clinical review of focused ultrasound ablation with magnetic resonance guidance: an option for treating uterine fibroids. Ultrasound Q 2008, 24(2):131-9. doi:10.1097/RUQ.0b013e31817c5e0c
• [11]Stewart EA, Gostout B, Rabinovici J, Kim HS, Regan L, Tempany CM: Sustained relief of leiomyoma symptoms by using focused ultrasound surgery. Obstet Gynecol 2007, 110(2 Pt 1):279-87. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000275283.39475.f6
• [12]Stewart EA, Rabinovici J, Tempany CM, Inbar Y, Regan L, Gostout B, et al.: Clinical outcomes of focused ultrasound surgery for the treatment of uterine fibroids. Fertil Steril 2006, 85(1):22-9. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.04.072
• [13]Yoon SW, Kim KA, Cha SH, Kim YM, Lee C, Na YJ, et al.: Successful use of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery to relieve symptoms in a patient with symptomatic focal adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 2008, 90(5):2018. e13-5. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.05.028
• [14]Yoon SW, Kim KA, Kim SH, Lee JT: Successful magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery for recurrent uterine fibroid previously treated with uterine artery embolization. Obstet Gynecol Int 2010. doi:10.1155/2010/351273
• [15]Behera MA, Leong M, Johnson L, Brown H: Eligibility and accessibility of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) for the treatment of uterine leiomyomas. Fertil Steril 2010, 94(5):1864-8. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.09.063
• [16]Harvard Pilgrim Health Care: Magnetic Resonance Guided Focused Ultrasound Ablation for Uterine Fibroids. 2012. https://www.harvardpilgrim.org/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PROVIDERS/MEDMGMT/STATEMENTS/MRGUIDED_FUA_FIBROIDS_0512.PDF webcite. Accessed October 14, 2013
• [17]Taran FA, Hesley GK, Gorny KR, Stewart EA: What factors currently limit magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound of leiomyomas? A survey conducted at the first international symposium devoted to clinical magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound. Fertil Steril 2010, 94(1):331-4. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.02.083
• [18]Carls GS, Lee DW, Ozminkowski RJ, Wang S, Gibson TB, Stewart E: What are the total costs of surgical treatment for uterine fibroids? J Women's Health (2002) 2008, 17(7):1119-32.
• [19]Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR: A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987, 40(5):373-83.
• [20]Ashcraft ML, Fries BE, Nerenz DR, Falcon SP, Srivastava SV, Lee CZ, et al.: A psychiatric patient classification system, An alternative to diagnosis-related groups. Med Care 1989, 27(5):543-57.
• [21]D'Agostino RB Jr: Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 1998, 17(19):2265-81.
• [22]Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB: The central role of propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983, 70(1):41-55.
• [23]Blough DK, Madden CW, Hornbrook MC: Modeling risk using generalized linear models. J Health Econ 1999, 18(2):153-71.
• [24]Manning WG, Basu A, Mullahy J: Generalized modeling approaches to risk adjustment of skewed outcomes data. J Health Econ 2005, 24(3):465-88. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2004.09.011
• [25]O'Sullivan AK, Thompson D, Chu P, Lee DW, Stewart EA, Weinstein MC: Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound for the treatment of uterine fibroids. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009, 25(1):14-25. doi:10.1017/S0266462309090035
• [26]Zowall H, Cairns JA, Brewer C, Lamping DL, Gedroyc WM, Regan L: Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery for treatment of uterine fibroids. Bjog 2008, 115(5):653-62. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01657.x
• [27]Rabinovici J, David M, Fukunishi H, Morita Y, Gostout BS, Stewart EA: Pregnancy outcome after magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery (MRgFUS) for conservative treatment of uterine fibroids. Fertil Steril 2010, 93(1):199-209. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.10.001
• [28]Machtinger R, Inbar Y, Cohen-Eylon S, Admon D, Alagem-Mizrachi A, Rabinovici J: MR-guided focus ultrasound (MRgFUS) for symptomatic uterine fibroids: predictors of treatment success. Hum Reprod 2012, 27(12):3425-31. doi:10.1093/humrep/des333
• [29]Stewart EA, Gedroyc WM, Tempany CM, Quade BJ, Inbar Y, Ehrenstein T, et al.: Focused ultrasound treatment of uterine fibroid tumors: safety and feasibility of a noninvasive thermoablative technique. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003, 189(1):48-54.
• [30]Tropeano G, Amoroso S, Scambia G: Non-surgical management of uterine fibroids. Hum Reprod Update 2008, 14(3):259-74. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmn006
• [31]Zaher S, Gedroyc WM, Regan L: Patient suitability for magnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound surgery of uterine fibroids. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009, 143(2):98-102. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2008.12.011
• [32]Dobrotwir A, Pun E: Clinical 24 month experience of the first MRgFUS unit for treatment of uterine fibroids in Australia. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2012, 56(4):409-16. do:10.1111/j.1754-9485.2012.02376.x
• [33]Fennessy FM, Tempany CM, McDannold NJ, So MJ, Hesley G, Gostout B, et al.: Uterine leiomyomas: MR imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery–results of different treatment protocols. Radiology 2007, 243(3):885-93. doi:10.1148/radiol.2433060267
• [34]Machtinger R, Tempany CM, Kanan Roddy A, Fennessy FM: Successful MRI-Guided Focused Ultrasound Uterine Fibroid Treatment Despite an Ostomy and Significant Abdominal Wall Scarring. ISRN Obstet Gynecol 2011, 2011:962621. doi:10.5402/2011/962621
• [35]Morita Y, Takeuchi S, Hikida H, Ohashi H, Ito N: Decreasing margins to the uterine serosa as a method for increasing the volume of fibroids ablated with magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009, 146(1):92-5. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.05.004
• [36]Rabinovici J, Inbar Y, Revel A, Zalel Y, Gomori JM, Itzchak Y, et al.: Clinical improvement and shrinkage of uterine fibroids after thermal ablation by magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007, 30(5):771-7. doi:10.1002/uog.4099
• [37]Bouwsma EV, Hesley GK, Woodrum DA, Weaver AL, Leppert PC, Peterson LG, et al.: Comparing focused ultrasound and uterine artery embolization for uterine fibroids-rationale and design of the Fibroid Interventions: reducing symptoms today and tomorrow (FIRSTT) trial. Fertil Steril 2011, 96(3):704-10. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.06.062
• [38]Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI: Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 2000, 342(25):1887-92. doi:10.1056/NEJM200006223422507