An economic evaluation of outpatient versus inpatient polyp treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding.

<bold>Objectives: </bold>To undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis of outpatient uterine polypectomy compared with standard inpatient treatment under general anaesthesia.<bold>Design: </bold>Economic evaluation carried out alongside the multi-centre, pragmatic, non-inferiority, randomised controlled Outpatient Polyp Treatment (OPT) trial. The UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective was used in the estimation of costs and the interpretation of results.<bold>Setting: </bold>Thirty-one secondary care UK NHS hospitals between April 2008 and July 2011.<bold>Participants: </bold>Five hundred and seven women with abnormal uterine bleeding and hysteroscopically diagnosed endometrial polyps.<bold>Interventions: </bold>Outpatient uterine polypectomy versus standard inpatient treatment. Clinicians were free to choose the technique for polypectomy within the allocated setting.<bold>Main Outcome Measures: </bold>Patient-reported effectiveness of the procedure determined by the women's self-assessment of bleeding at 6 months, and QALY gains at 6 and 12 months.<bold>Results: </bold>Inpatient treatment was slightly more effective but more expensive than outpatient treatment, resulting in relatively high incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Intention-to-treat analysis of the base case at 6 months revealed that it cost an additional £9421 per successfully treated patient in the inpatient group and £ 1,099,167 per additional QALY gained, when compared with outpatient treatment. At 12 months, these costs were £22,293 per additional effectively treated patient and £445,867 per additional QALY gained, respectively.<bold>Conclusions: </bold>Outpatient treatment of uterine polyps associated with abnormal uterine bleeding appears to be more cost-effective than inpatient treatment at willingness-to-pay thresholds acceptable to the NHS.<bold>Tweetable Abstract: </bold>HTA-funded OPT trial concluded that outpatient uterine polypectomy is cost-effective compared with inpatient polypectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]