title: Uterine artery embolisation or hysterectomy for the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids: a cost-utility analysis of the HOPEFUL study.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of uterine artery embolisation (UAE) and hysterectomy in women with symptomatic uterine fibroids from the perspective of the UK NHS.
  
  
  METHODS
  Cost-utility analysis.
  
  
  METHODS
  Eighteen UK NHS hospital trusts. POPULATION OR SAMPLE Women who underwent UAE (n= 649; average follow up of 8.6 years) or hysterectomy (n= 459; average follow up of 4.6 years) for the treatments of symptomatic fibroids.
  
  
  METHODS
  A probabilistic decision model was carried out based on data from a large comparative cohort and the literature. The two interventions were evaluated over the time horizon from the initial procedure to menopause. Extensive sensitivity analysis was carried out to test model assumptions and parameter uncertainties.
  
  
  METHODS
  Costs of procedures and complications and quality of life expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).
  
  
  RESULTS
  Overall, UAE was associated with lower mean cost (2536 pounds sterling versus 3282 pounds sterling) and a small reduction in quality of life (8.203 versus 8.241 QALYs) when compared with hysterectomy. However, when the quality of life associated with the conservation of the uterus was incorporated in the model, UAE was shown to be the dominant strategy--lower costs and greater QALYs.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  UAE is a less expensive option to the health service compared with hysterectomy, even when the costs of repeat procedures and associated complications are factored in. The quality of life implications in the short term are also predicted to favour UAE; however, this advantage may be eroded over time as women undergo additional procedures to deal with recurrent fibroids. Given the hysterectomy is the current standard treatment for symptomatic fibroids, offering women UAE as an alternative treatment for fibroids is likely to be highly cost-effective for those women who prefer uterus-conserving treatment.
authors.affiliation: Public Health and Health Policy, Division of Community Based Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. o.wu@clinmed.gla.ac.uk
authors.forename: O
authors.initials: O
authors.lastname: Wu
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Briggs
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Dutton
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Hirst
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Maresh
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Nicholson
authors.forename: K
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: McPherson
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001158:Arteries; D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D017598:Efficiency, Organizational / Q000191:economics; D004621:Embolization, Therapeutic / Q000191:economics*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007044:Hysterectomy / Q000191:economics*; D007889:Leiomyoma / Q000191:economics / Q000628:therapy*; D008875:Middle Aged; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000209:etiology; D011788:Quality of Life; D019057:Quality-Adjusted Life Years; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012307:Risk Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014594:Uterine Neoplasms / Q000191:economics / Q000628:therapy*; D014599:Uterus / Q000098:blood supply