Grand TS, Basarir H, Jackson LJ. The cost-effectiveness of oral contraceptives compared to ‘no hormonal treatment‘ for endometriosis-related pain: an economic evaluation. PLoS One. 2019 Jan 30;14(1):e0210089.


OBJECTIVE: To develop a preliminary cost-effectiveness model that compares oral contraceptives and ‘no hormonal treatment’ for the treatment of endometriosis-related pain.

METHODS: A de novo preliminary state transition (Markov) model was developed. The model was informed by systematic literature review and expert opinion. The uncertainty around the results was assessed both by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The economic evaluation was conducted from National Health Service (NHS) England perspective. The main outcome measure was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), with cost-effectiveness plane and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves presented for alternative willingness-to-pay thresholds.

RESULTS: Oral contraceptives dominated ‘no hormonal treatment’ and provided more QALYs at a lower cost than ‘no hormonal treatment’, with a cost-effectiveness probability of 98%. A oneway sensitivity analysis excluding general practitioner consultations showed that oral contraceptives were still cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS:
The analyses showed that oral contraceptives could be an effective option for the treatment of endometriosis, as this treatment was shown to provide a higher level of QALYs at a lower cost, compared to ‘no hormonal treatment’. The results are subject to considerable parameter uncertainty as a range of assumptions were required as part of the modelling process.

Share on: