{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04149159663865546, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01995798319327731, 'mean_word_length': 5.105769230769231, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Cost-effectiveness of treatments for dysfunctional uterine bleeding.

OBJECTIVE
To compare the cost-effectiveness of treatments for dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB).


STUDY DESIGN
The decision analytic model used a third-party payer perspective and 18-month horizon to compare treatment of DUB patients > or = 40 years old with no desire for fertility. Treatments were oral contraceptives (OCs) vs. surgery (first-/second-generation ablation or hysterectomy) after 3-9 months of OCs. Costs were based on publications and expert opinion. Efficacy measures were based on months with pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC) score < 100 and number of months of amenorrhea.


RESULTS
Treatment costs were estimated at 513 dollars per patient per year (OCs), 3,500 dollars (first-generation ablation), 3,000 dollars (second-generation ablation) and 7,500 dollars (hysterectomy). Adverse event costs ranged from 12 dollars per year or episode (OCs, second-generation ablation) to 164 dollars per episode (hysterectomy). To achieve PBAC < 100, second-generation ablation after 3 months of OCs was the most cost-effective (7.6 additional DUB-free months vs. OCs, 215 dollars per additional month). Second-generation ablation was less costly and more effective than first-generation ablation. Early treatment with hysterectomy was more effective than ablation, but at substantial cost. When using the end point of amenorrhea, hysterectomy was most cost-effective. Results were not sensitive to variations in costs, effectiveness or length of OC use.


CONCLUSION
A short OC trial followed by second-generation ablation is the most cost-effective strategy for women with DUB, although hysterectomy is more cost-effective to achieve amenorrhea. Hysterectomy cost-effectiveness might improve if evaluated over more time. Cost-effectiveness and patient preference must all play a role in treatment decisions.