Tratamento do sangramento uterino anormal: uma análise sob a perspectiva dos custos no Sistema Único de Saúde e da medicina suplementar

Agnaldo Lopes da Silva Filho, Ana Luiza Lunardi Rocha, Francisco de Assis Nunes Pereira, Rubens Lene Tavares, Márcia Cristina França Ferreira, Rívia Mara Lamaita, Márcia Mendonça Carneiro
{"title":"Tratamento do sangramento uterino anormal: uma análise sob a perspectiva dos custos no Sistema Único de Saúde e da medicina suplementar","authors":"Agnaldo Lopes da Silva Filho,&nbsp;Ana Luiza Lunardi Rocha,&nbsp;Francisco de Assis Nunes Pereira,&nbsp;Rubens Lene Tavares,&nbsp;Márcia Cristina França Ferreira,&nbsp;Rívia Mara Lamaita,&nbsp;Márcia Mendonça Carneiro","doi":"10.1016/j.recli.2016.01.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To compare direct and indirect costs of the levonorgestrel‐releasing intrauterine system (LNG‐IUS), thermal balloon endometrial ablation (TBEA) and hysterectomy in the treatment of women with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>88 patients treated for AUB by LNG‐IUS (n = 30), TBEA (n = 28) and hysterectomy (n = 30) were retrospectively evaluated. All procedures, medical appointments and tests involved in the treatment of patients were considered for a period of five years, as well as all costs arising from failures of the treatments used. The costs for the Unified Health System (SUS) and the private health care system were estimated. Differences between groups were evaluated by the test <em>t</em> of Student or ANOVA.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The cost of the treatment of AUB with TBEA was significantly higher <em>versus</em> LNG‐IUS and hysterectomy after a five‐year follow‐up in both SUS and private health care system (p &lt;0.001). In SUS, the treatment with the LNG‐IUS represented 38.2% of the hysterectomy cost in the first year (R$ 769.61 <em>vs.</em> R$ 2,012.21, p &lt;0.001) and 45.2% after five years (R$ 927.83 vs. R$ 2,052.21, p &lt;0.001). As for the private health care system, this difference was even more significant. In this context, the cost of LNG‐IUS represented 29.1% of the hysterectomy cost in the first year (R$ 1,551.92 vs. R$ 5,324.74, p &lt;0.001) and 37.4% after five years (R$ 2,069.35 vs. R$ 5,538.74, p &lt;0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The use of LNG‐IUS results in lower direct and indirect costs <em>versus</em> TBEA and hysterectomy in the treatment of women with AUB. The cost‐effectiveness of LNG‐IUS, together with the reversibility and also by this being an outpatient procedure, highlights its role in the treatment of women with AUB, both in SUS perspective as in private health care system's.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101073,"journal":{"name":"Reprodu??o & Climatério","volume":"31 1","pages":"Pages 31-36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.recli.2016.01.003","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reprodu??o & Climatério","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1413208716000066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objectives

To compare direct and indirect costs of the levonorgestrel‐releasing intrauterine system (LNG‐IUS), thermal balloon endometrial ablation (TBEA) and hysterectomy in the treatment of women with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB).

Methods

88 patients treated for AUB by LNG‐IUS (n = 30), TBEA (n = 28) and hysterectomy (n = 30) were retrospectively evaluated. All procedures, medical appointments and tests involved in the treatment of patients were considered for a period of five years, as well as all costs arising from failures of the treatments used. The costs for the Unified Health System (SUS) and the private health care system were estimated. Differences between groups were evaluated by the test t of Student or ANOVA.

Results

The cost of the treatment of AUB with TBEA was significantly higher versus LNG‐IUS and hysterectomy after a five‐year follow‐up in both SUS and private health care system (p <0.001). In SUS, the treatment with the LNG‐IUS represented 38.2% of the hysterectomy cost in the first year (R$ 769.61 vs. R$ 2,012.21, p <0.001) and 45.2% after five years (R$ 927.83 vs. R$ 2,052.21, p <0.001). As for the private health care system, this difference was even more significant. In this context, the cost of LNG‐IUS represented 29.1% of the hysterectomy cost in the first year (R$ 1,551.92 vs. R$ 5,324.74, p <0.001) and 37.4% after five years (R$ 2,069.35 vs. R$ 5,538.74, p <0.001).

Conclusions

The use of LNG‐IUS results in lower direct and indirect costs versus TBEA and hysterectomy in the treatment of women with AUB. The cost‐effectiveness of LNG‐IUS, together with the reversibility and also by this being an outpatient procedure, highlights its role in the treatment of women with AUB, both in SUS perspective as in private health care system's.

异常子宫出血的治疗:从统一卫生系统和补充医学成本的角度分析
目的比较左炔诺孕酮释放宫内系统(LNG - IUS)、热球囊子宫内膜消融(TBEA)和子宫切除术治疗子宫异常出血(AUB)的直接和间接成本。方法回顾性分析88例经LNG - IUS (n = 30)、TBEA (n = 28)和子宫切除术(n = 30)治疗的AUB患者。对治疗病人所涉及的所有程序、医疗预约和检查进行了为期五年的考虑,并对因治疗失败而产生的所有费用进行了考虑。对统一卫生系统(SUS)和私人卫生保健系统的费用进行了估计。组间差异采用Student检验t或ANOVA检验。结果在SUS和私人医疗保健系统中进行5年随访后,TBEA治疗AUB的费用明显高于LNG - IUS和子宫切除术(p <0.001)。在SUS中,LNG - IUS治疗在第一年占子宫切除术费用的38.2%(769.61雷亚尔对2,012.21雷亚尔,p <0.001),五年后占45.2%(927.83雷亚尔对2,052.21雷亚尔,p <0.001)。至于私人医疗保健系统,这种差异甚至更为显著。在这种情况下,LNG - IUS成本在第一年占子宫切除术成本的29.1%(1,551.92雷亚尔对5,324.74雷亚尔,p <0.001),五年后占37.4%(2,069.35雷亚尔对5,538.74雷亚尔,p <0.001)。结论:与TBEA和子宫切除术相比,使用LNG - IUS治疗AUB的直接和间接成本更低。LNG - IUS的成本效益、可逆性以及作为门诊手术,突出了其在治疗AUB妇女中的作用,无论是在SUS的角度还是在私人医疗保健系统的角度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信