Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39653562›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2024

Cost-effectiveness of long-acting progestogens versus the combined oral contraceptives pill for preventing recurrence of endometriosis-related pain following surgery: an economic evaluation alongside the PRE-EMPT trial.

Melyda Melyda, Mark Monahan, Kevin G Cooper, Siladitya Bhattacharya, Jane P Daniels, Versha Cheed, Lee Middleton, Tracy E Roberts

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Melyda MelydaHealth Economics Unit, Department of Applied Health Science, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6740-4910
Mark MonahanHealth Economics Unit, Department of Applied Health Science, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Kevin G CooperNHS Grampian, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZN, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1486-0071
Siladitya BhattacharyaSchool of Medicine Medical Sciences & Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB24 3FX, UK.
Jane P DanielsNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
Versha CheedBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Lee MiddletonBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Tracy E RobertsHealth Economics Unit, Department of Applied Health Science, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK t.e.roberts@bham.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of long-acting progestogens (LAP), including levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), compared with the combined oral contraceptives pill (COCP) in preventing recurrence of endometriosis-related pain postsurgery.

designWithin-trial economic evaluation alongside a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial (Preventing Recurrence of Endometriosis by means of Long-Acting Progestogen Therapy trial).

settingThirty-four UK hospitals recruiting participants from November 2015 to March 2019. PATIENTS: Four hundred and five women aged 16-45 years undergoing conservative endometriosis surgery.

interventionsThe ratio of 1:1 randomisation to receive LAPs (LNG-IUS or DMPA) or COCP.

main outcome measuresThe primary evaluation was a cost-utility analysis based on cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained at 3 years. We adopted a UK National Health Service perspective. Secondary analyses in the form of cost-effectiveness analysis based on a range of outcomes were also undertaken.

resultsFor the primary analysis, the COCP group incurred an additional cost of £533 (95% CI £52 to £983) per woman compared with LAPs. Treatment with COCP generated additional QALYs of 0.031 (95% CI -0.079 to 0.139) compared with the LAP group over 36-month follow-up. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for COCP compared with LAPs is therefore approximately £17 193 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that there was a 54.7% probability that COCP would be cost-effective at the £20 000/QALY threshold. The secondary analyses revealed results more in favour of LAPs.

conclusionAlthough the COCP has a slightly higher probability of being cost-effective at £20 000/QALY threshold, there remains considerable uncertainty, with only marginal differences in outcomes between the two treatments. The lower rates of further surgery and second-line medical treatment for women allocated to LAPs may make this option preferable for some women. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 97865475.

Indexed as

Contraceptives, Oral, CombinedCost-Benefit AnalysisEndometriosisLevonorgestrelQuality-Adjusted Life YearsAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansIntrauterine Devices, MedicatedMedroxyprogesterone AcetateMiddle AgedProgestinsRecurrenceUnited KingdomYoung AdultContraceptives, Oral, CombinedLevonorgestrelMedroxyprogesterone AcetateProgestinsGYNAECOLOGYHealthcare CostsHEALTH ECONOMICS

Identifiers

PMID39653562
PMCPMC11628948

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.