Incorporating ulipristal acetate in the care of symptomatic uterine fibroids: a Canadian cost-utility analysis of pharmacotherapy management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To present a Canadian economic evaluation on the cost-utility of ulipristal acetate (5 mg orally daily) compared to leuprolide acetate (3.75 mg intramuscular monthly) in the treatment of moderate-to-severe symptoms of uterine fibroids in women eligible for surgery. METHODS: A probabilistic decision tree was constructed to model the pre-operative pharmacological management of uterine fibroids under the primary perspective of the Ontario public payer. The model parameterized data from clinical trials, observational studies, and public costing databases. The outcome measure was the incremental cost-utility ratio. Uncertainty in the model was explored through sensitivity and scenario analyses. RESULTS: Ulipristal was associated with faster control of excessive menstrual bleeding, fewer symptoms of hot flashes and lower health care resource consumption. The ulipristal strategy dominated leuprolide as it provided patients with more quality-adjusted life years (0.177 versus 0.165) at a lower cost ($1,273 versus $1,366). Across a range of sensitivity analyses, the results remained robust except to the dose of the comparator drug. If leuprolide was administered at 11.25 mg, once every 3 months, the expected cost for the leuprolide strategy would decline and the associated incremental cost-utility ratio for ulipristal would be $168/quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSION: Ulipristal offers a unique opportunity to effectively and rapidly control menstrual bleeding in patients with uterine fibroids; thereby improving their quality of life while minimizing the probability of moderate-to-severe hot flashes that are common with leuprolide. The current economic analysis suggests that ulipristal remains the dominant strategy across extensive sensitivity analyses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".