英格兰宫颈上皮内瘤变的治疗方法:成本效益分析

IF 4.7 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Michela Tinelli, Antonios Athanasiou, Areti Angeliki Veroniki, Orestis Efthimiou, Ilkka Kalliala, Sarah Bowden, Maria Paraskevaidi, Deirdre Lyons, Pierre Martin-Hirsch, Phillip Bennett, Evangelos Paraskevaidis, Georgia Salanti, Maria Kyrgiou, Huseyin Naci
{"title":"英格兰宫颈上皮内瘤变的治疗方法:成本效益分析","authors":"Michela Tinelli,&nbsp;Antonios Athanasiou,&nbsp;Areti Angeliki Veroniki,&nbsp;Orestis Efthimiou,&nbsp;Ilkka Kalliala,&nbsp;Sarah Bowden,&nbsp;Maria Paraskevaidi,&nbsp;Deirdre Lyons,&nbsp;Pierre Martin-Hirsch,&nbsp;Phillip Bennett,&nbsp;Evangelos Paraskevaidis,&nbsp;Georgia Salanti,&nbsp;Maria Kyrgiou,&nbsp;Huseyin Naci","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.17829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To compare the cost-effectiveness of different treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>A cost-effectiveness analysis based on data available in the literature and expert opinion.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Setting</h3>\n \n <p>England.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Population</h3>\n \n <p>Women treated for CIN.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We developed a decision-analytic model to simulate the clinical course of 1000 women who received local treatment for CIN and were followed up for 10 years after treatment. In the model we considered surgical complications as well as oncological and reproductive outcomes over the 10-year period. The costs calculated were those incurred by the National Health Service (NHS) of England.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main outcome measures</h3>\n \n <p>Cost per one CIN2+ recurrence averted (oncological outcome); cost per one preterm birth averted (reproductive outcome); overall cost per one adverse oncological or reproductive outcome averted.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>For young women of reproductive age, large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) was the most cost-effective treatment overall at all willingness-to-pay thresholds. For postmenopausal women, LLETZ remained the most cost-effective treatment up to a threshold of £31,500, but laser conisation became the most cost-effective treatment above that threshold.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>LLETZ is the most cost-effective treatment for both younger and older women. However, for older women, more radical excision with laser conisation could also be considered if the NHS is willing to spend more than £31,500 to avert one CIN2+ recurrence.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50729,"journal":{"name":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1471-0528.17829","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treatment methods for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in England: A cost-effectiveness analysis\",\"authors\":\"Michela Tinelli,&nbsp;Antonios Athanasiou,&nbsp;Areti Angeliki Veroniki,&nbsp;Orestis Efthimiou,&nbsp;Ilkka Kalliala,&nbsp;Sarah Bowden,&nbsp;Maria Paraskevaidi,&nbsp;Deirdre Lyons,&nbsp;Pierre Martin-Hirsch,&nbsp;Phillip Bennett,&nbsp;Evangelos Paraskevaidis,&nbsp;Georgia Salanti,&nbsp;Maria Kyrgiou,&nbsp;Huseyin Naci\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1471-0528.17829\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>To compare the cost-effectiveness of different treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Design</h3>\\n \\n <p>A cost-effectiveness analysis based on data available in the literature and expert opinion.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Setting</h3>\\n \\n <p>England.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Population</h3>\\n \\n <p>Women treated for CIN.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We developed a decision-analytic model to simulate the clinical course of 1000 women who received local treatment for CIN and were followed up for 10 years after treatment. In the model we considered surgical complications as well as oncological and reproductive outcomes over the 10-year period. The costs calculated were those incurred by the National Health Service (NHS) of England.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Main outcome measures</h3>\\n \\n <p>Cost per one CIN2+ recurrence averted (oncological outcome); cost per one preterm birth averted (reproductive outcome); overall cost per one adverse oncological or reproductive outcome averted.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>For young women of reproductive age, large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) was the most cost-effective treatment overall at all willingness-to-pay thresholds. For postmenopausal women, LLETZ remained the most cost-effective treatment up to a threshold of £31,500, but laser conisation became the most cost-effective treatment above that threshold.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>LLETZ is the most cost-effective treatment for both younger and older women. However, for older women, more radical excision with laser conisation could also be considered if the NHS is willing to spend more than £31,500 to avert one CIN2+ recurrence.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50729,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1471-0528.17829\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.17829\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.17829","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

比较宫颈上皮内瘤变(CIN)不同治疗方法的成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Treatment methods for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in England: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Treatment methods for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in England: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Objective

To compare the cost-effectiveness of different treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN).

Design

A cost-effectiveness analysis based on data available in the literature and expert opinion.

Setting

England.

Population

Women treated for CIN.

Methods

We developed a decision-analytic model to simulate the clinical course of 1000 women who received local treatment for CIN and were followed up for 10 years after treatment. In the model we considered surgical complications as well as oncological and reproductive outcomes over the 10-year period. The costs calculated were those incurred by the National Health Service (NHS) of England.

Main outcome measures

Cost per one CIN2+ recurrence averted (oncological outcome); cost per one preterm birth averted (reproductive outcome); overall cost per one adverse oncological or reproductive outcome averted.

Results

For young women of reproductive age, large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) was the most cost-effective treatment overall at all willingness-to-pay thresholds. For postmenopausal women, LLETZ remained the most cost-effective treatment up to a threshold of £31,500, but laser conisation became the most cost-effective treatment above that threshold.

Conclusions

LLETZ is the most cost-effective treatment for both younger and older women. However, for older women, more radical excision with laser conisation could also be considered if the NHS is willing to spend more than £31,500 to avert one CIN2+ recurrence.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
5.20%
发文量
345
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: BJOG is an editorially independent publication owned by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). The Journal publishes original, peer-reviewed work in all areas of obstetrics and gynaecology, including contraception, urogynaecology, fertility, oncology and clinical practice. Its aim is to publish the highest quality medical research in women''s health, worldwide.
×
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