Search

Introduction: Condoms and combined oral contraceptive pills are widely used in Spain with high failure rates. Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive (LARC) methods offer better efficacy and adherence and reduce unintended pregnancies (UP) compared with short-acting reversible contraceptive (SARC) methods., Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of LNG-IUS 52 mg (Mirena ® ) versus other LARC for contraception in Spain., Materials and Methods: A Markov model with annual cycles and an eight-year time horizon was developed from the Spanish national healthcare system (NHS) perspective, considering costs for contraceptive method acquisition, health care resources (HCR) and UP. Effectiveness was based on failure and discontinuation rates. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the model's robustness., Results: LNG-IUS 52 mg (Mirena ® ) resulted in lower costs and fewer UP versus LNG-IUS 13.5 mg (Jaydess ® ), Implant (Implanon ® ) and Copper IUD. LNG-IUS 52 mg (Levosert ® ) prevented the same UP events at a higher cost. LNG-IUS 19.5 mg (Kyleena ® ) was the most effective option, due to a lower discontinuation rate., Conclusions: LNG-IUS 52 mg (Mirena ® ) is the least costly LARC, driven by lower acquisition costs and reduced HCR utilisation. Increasing LNG-IUS 52 mg (Mirena ® ) uptake in contraception could generate further cost savings for the Spanish NHS and reduce economic burden of UP.

Background: This economic evaluation and literature review was conducted with the primary aim to compare the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic assisted supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) with NICE's gold-standard treatment of Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) for menorrhagia., Materials and Methods: A cost-utility analysis was conducted from an NHS perspective, using data from two European studies to compare the treatments. Individual costs and benefits were assessed within one year of having the intervention. An Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was calculated, followed by sensitivity analysis. Expected Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYS) and costs to the NHS were calculated alongside health net benefits (HNB) and monetary net benefits (MNB)., Results: A QALY gain of 0.069 was seen in use of LNG-IUS compared to LASH. This yielded a MNB between -£44.99 and -£734.99, alongside a HNB between -0.0705 QALYs and -0.106 QALYS. Using a £20,000-£30,000/QALY limit outlined by NICE,this showed the LNG-IUS to be more cost-effective than LASH, with LASH exceeding the upper bound of the £30,000/QALY limit. Sensitivity analysis lowered the ICER below the given threshold., Conclusions: The ICER demonstrates it would not be cost-effective to replace the current gold-standard LNG-IUS with LASH, when treating menorrhagia in the UK. The ICER's proximity to the threshold and its high sensitivity alludes to the necessity for further research to generate a more reliable cost-effectiveness estimate. However, LASH could be considered as a first line treatment option in women with no desire to have children., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the costs and non-inferiority of a strategy starting with the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) compared with endometrial ablation (EA) in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB)., Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective alongside a multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial., Setting: General practices and gynaecology departments in the Netherlands., Population: In all, 270 women with HMB, aged ≥34 years old, without intracavitary pathology or wish for a future child., Methods: Randomisation to a strategy starting with the LNG-IUS (n = 132) or EA (n = 138). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated., Main Outcome Measures: Direct medical costs and (in)direct non-medical costs were calculated. The primary outcome was menstrual blood loss after 24 months, measured with the mean Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart (PBAC)-score (non-inferiority margin 25 points). A secondary outcome was successful blood loss reduction (PBAC-score ≤75 points)., Results: Total costs per patient were €2,285 in the LNG-IUS strategy and €3,465 in the EA strategy (difference: €1,180). At 24 months, mean PBAC-scores were 64.8 in the LNG-IUS group (n = 115) and 14.2 in the EA group (n = 132); difference 50.5 points (95% CI 4.3-96.7). In the LNG-IUS group, 87% of women had a PBAC-score ≤75 points versus 94% in the EA group (relative risk [RR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.85-1.01). The ICER was €23 (95% CI €5-111) per PBAC-point., Conclusions: A strategy starting with the LNG-IUS was cheaper than starting with EA, but non-inferiority could not be demonstrated. The LNG-IUS is reversible and less invasive and can be a cost-effective treatment option, depending on the success rate women are willing to accept., Tweetable Abstract: Treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding starting with LNG-IUS is cheaper but slightly less effective than endometrial ablation., (© 2021 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: To estimate the cost-effectiveness (CE) of etonogestrel implants compared to other long-term and short-term reversible contraceptive methods available in France., Research Design and Methods: A 6-year Markov model compared effectiveness between the implant and six other contraceptive methods in sexually active, not-pregnancy-seeking French females of reproductive age. Contraception efficacy, switch rates and outcomes were based on French current medical practice. Incremental CE ratios (ICERs) were calculated as incremental cost per unintended pregnancy (UP) avoided. Efficiency frontier was plotted to identify cost-effective methods. Uncertainty was explored through sensitivity analyses., Results: The implant was on the efficiency frontier along with combined oral contraceptive pill (COC) and copper IUD. Implant avoids between 0.75% and 3.53% additional UP per person-year compared to copper IUD and second generation COC, respectively, with an ICER of €2,221 per UP avoided compared to copper IUD. For the 240,000 French women currently using the implant, up to 8,475 UPs and up to 1,992 abortions may be prevented annually., Conclusion: With more unintended pregnancies avoided and comparable costs to copper IUD, the implant is a cost-effective option among long-term and short-term reversible contraceptive methods.

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) as an endometrial cancer prevention strategy in women with obesity., Methods: A Markov decision-analytic model was used to compare 5 strategies in women with a body mass index of 30 or greater: 1) Usual care 2) LNG-IUS for 5 years 3) LNG-IUS for 7 years 4) LNG-IUS for 5 years, replaced once for a total of 10 years 5) LNG-IUS for 7 years, replaced once for a total of 14 years. Obesity was presumed to be associated with a 3-fold relative risk of endometrial cancer incidence and a 2.65-fold disease-specific mortality. The LNG-IUS was assumed to confer a 50% reduction in cancer incidence over the period of the LNG-IUS insertion. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, calculated in 2019 Canadian dollars (CAD) per year of life saved. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed., Results: The LNG-IUS strategy was considered cost-effective if the cost of the intervention is less than $66,400 CAD ($50,000 US dollars) per year of life saved. The strategy becomes cost-effective if the LNG-IUS is inserted at age 57 (strategy #2), at age 52 for strategy #3, at age 51 for strategy #4 and at age 45 for strategy #5, when compared to usual care. The results are stable to variations in cost but sensitive to the estimated risk reduction of the LNG-IUS and the impact of obesity on endometrial cancer incidence and disease-specific mortality., Conclusion: The LNG-IUS is a cost-effective method of endometrial cancer prevention in women with obesity., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of ulipristal acetate (UPA) and levonorgestrel (LNG) emergency contraception (EC) on pregnancy prevention among combined oral contraceptive (COC) pill users with an extended pill-free interval. We accounted for the potential interaction of COCs and obesity on EC efficacy., Methods: We built a decision-analytic model using TreeAge software to evaluate the optimal oral EC strategy in a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 twenty-five-year-old women midcycle with a prolonged "missed" pill episode (8-14 days). We used a 5-year time horizon and 3% discount rate. From a healthcare perspective, we obtained probabilities, utilities and costs inflated to 2018 dollars from the literature. We set the threshold for cost-effectiveness at a standard $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. We included the following clinical outcomes: number of protected cycles, unintended pregnancies, abortions, deliveries and costs., Results: We found that UPA was the optimal method of oral EC, as it resulted in 720 fewer unintended pregnancies, 736 fewer abortions and 80 fewer deliveries at a total cost savings of $50,323 and 79 additional adjusted life-years. UPA continued to be the optimal strategy even in the case of obesity or COCs impacting UPA efficacy, in which a COC interaction would have to change efficacy of UPA by 160% before LNG was the dominant strategy., Conclusion: Our models found that UPA was the dominant choice of oral EC among COC users with a prolonged "missed" pill episode, regardless of body mass index or an adverse interaction of COCs on UPA., Implications: Ulipristal acetate is the dominant choice of oral emergency contraception among combined oral contraceptive users., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The copper intrauterine device is the most effective form of emergency contraception and can also provide long-term contraception. The levonorgestrel intrauterine device has also been studied in combination with oral levonorgestrel for women seeking emergency contraception. However, intrauterine devices have higher up-front costs than oral methods, such as ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel. Health care payers and decision makers (eg, health care insurers, government programs) with financial constraints must determine if the increased effectiveness of intrauterine device emergency contraception methods are worth the additional costs., Objective: We sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of 4 emergency contraception strategies-ulipristal acetate, oral levonorgestrel, copper intrauterine device, and oral levonorgestrel plus same-day levonorgestrel intrauterine device-over 1 year from a US payer perspective., Study Design: Costs (2017 US dollars) and pregnancies were estimated over 1 year using a Markov model of 1000 women seeking emergency contraception. Every 28-day cycle, the model estimated the predicted number of pregnancy outcomes (ie, live birth, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, or induced abortion) resulting from emergency contraception failure and subsequent contraception use. Model inputs were derived from published literature and national sources. An emergency contraception strategy was considered cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ie, the cost to prevent 1 additional pregnancy) was less than the weighted average cost of pregnancy outcomes in the United States ($5167). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and probability of being the most cost-effective emergency contraception strategy were calculated from 1000 probabilistic model iterations. One-way sensitivity analyses were used to examine uncertainty in the cost of emergency contraception, subsequent contraception, and pregnancy outcomes as well as the model probabilities., Results: In 1000 women seeking emergency contraception, the model estimated direct medical costs of $1,228,000 and 137 unintended pregnancies with ulipristal acetate, compared to $1,279,000 and 150 unintended pregnancies with oral levonorgestrel, $1,376,000 and 61 unintended pregnancies with copper intrauterine devices, and $1,558,000 and 63 unintended pregnancies with oral levonorgestrel plus same-day levonorgestrel intrauterine device. The copper intrauterine device was the most cost-effective emergency contraception strategy in the majority (63.9%) of model iterations and, compared to ulipristal acetate, cost $1957 per additional pregnancy prevented. Model estimates were most sensitive to changes in the cost of the copper intrauterine device (with higher copper intrauterine device costs, oral levonorgestrel plus same-day levonorgestrel intrauterine device became the most cost-effective option) and the cost of a live birth (with lower-cost births, ulipristal acetate became the most cost-effective option). When the proportion of obese women in the population increased, the copper intrauterine device became even more most cost-effective., Conclusion: Over 1 year, the copper intrauterine device is currently the most cost-effective emergency contraception option. Policy makers and health care insurance companies should consider the potential for long-term savings when women seeking emergency contraception can promptly obtain whatever contraceptive best meets their personal preferences and needs; this will require removing barriers and promoting access to intrauterine devices at emergency contraception visits., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background/aim: This study aimed to compare the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) with abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) as first-line treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB)., Materials and Methods: Ninety-eight patients aged 20-55 years who complained of regular heavy menstrual bleeding were enrolled in the study. The TAH group included 29 patients, the LNG-IUS group included 34, and the TLH group included 35. These groups were compared in terms of quality of life and the cost-effectiveness of the selected methods. Quality of life was assessed using the 36-Item Short Form (SF-36), and cost-effectiveness was assessed according to the current cost of each approach., Results: The quality of life parameters, with the exception of mental health, improved significantly in the LNG-IUS, TAH, and TLH groups. The mean costs of the LNG-IUS, TAH, and TLH procedures were $99.15 ± 4.90, $538.82 ± 193.00 and $1617.05 ± 258.44, respectively (P < 0.05). Overall, LNG-IUS was the most cost-effective treatment option., Conclusion: The outcome measures of the SF-36 revealed that after 6 months, these treatments were equal in terms of quality of life, except for mental health. LNG-IUS was the most cost-effective approach.

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding affects as many as one in three women and has negative physical, economic, and psychosocial impacts including activity limitations and reduced quality of life. The goal of treatment is to make menstruation manageable, and options include medical therapy or surgery such as endometrial ablation or hysterectomy. This review examined the evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) as a treatment alternative for idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding., Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the clinical and economic evidence comparing LNG-IUS with usual medical therapy, endometrial ablation, or hysterectomy. Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and the Centres for Reviews and Dissemination were searched from inception to August 2015. The quality of the evidence was assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also completed an economic evaluation to determine the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the LNG-IUS compared with endometrial ablation and with hysterectomy. The economic evaluation was conducted from the perspective the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care., Results: Relevant systematic reviews (n = 18) returned from the literature search were used to identify eligible randomized controlled trials, and 16 trials were included. The LNG-IUS improved quality of life and reduced menstrual blood loss better than usual medical therapy. There was no evidence of a significant difference in these outcomes compared with the improvements offered by endometrial ablation or hysterectomy. Mild hormonal side effects were the most commonly reported. The quality of the evidence varied from very low to moderate across outcomes. Results from the economic evaluation showed the LNG-IUS was less costly (incremental saving of $372 per person) and more effective providing higher quality-adjusted life years (incremental value of 0.05) compared with endometrial ablation. Similarly, the LNG-IUS costs less (incremental saving of $3,138 per person) and yields higher quality-adjusted life-years (incremental value of 0.04) compared with hysterectomy. Publicly funding LNG-IUS as an alternative to endometrial ablation and hysterectomy would result in annual cost savings of $3 million to $9 million and $0.1 million to $23 million, respectively, over the first 5 years., Conclusions: The 52-mg LNG-IUS is an effective and cost-effective treatment option for idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding. It improves quality of life and menstrual blood loss, and is well tolerated compared with endometrial ablation, hysterectomy, or usual medical therapies.

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device (IUD) as an endometrial cancer prevention strategy in obese women., Methods: A modified Markov model was used to compare IUD placement at age 50 with usual care among women with a body mass index (BMI, kg/m) 40 or greater or BMI 30 or greater. The effects of obesity on incidence and survival were incorporated. The IUD was assumed to confer a 50% reduction in cancer incidence over 5 years. Costs of IUD and cancer care were included. Clinical outcomes were cancer diagnosis and deaths from cancer. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated in 2015 U.S. dollars per year of life saved. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo probabilistic analyses were performed., Results: For a 50 year old with BMI 40 or greater, the IUD strategy is costlier and more effective than usual care with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $74,707 per year of life saved. If the protective effect of the levonorgestrel IUD is assumed to be 10 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio decreases to $37,858 per year of life saved. In sensitivity analysis, a levonorgestrel IUD that reduces cancer incidence by at least 68% in women with BMIs of 40 or greater or costs less than $500 is potentially cost-effective. For BMI 30 or greater, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of IUD strategy is $137,223 per year of life saved compared with usual care. In Monte Carlo analysis, IUD placement for BMI 40 or greater is cost-effective in 50% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per year of life saved., Conclusion: The levonorgestrel IUD is a potentially cost-effective strategy for prevention of deaths from endometrial cancer in obese women.

Background: The levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG IUS) is one of the most effective forms of contraception and offers important non-contraceptive health benefits. However, it is not widely available in developing countries, largely due to the high price of existing products. Medicines360 plans to introduce its new, more affordable LNG IUS in Kenya. The public-sector transfer price will vary by volume between US$12 to US$16 per unit; for an order of 100,000 units, the public-sector transfer price will be approximately US$15 per unit., Methods: We calculated the direct service delivery cost per couple-years of protection (CYP) of various family planning methods. The model includes the costs of contraceptive commodities, consumable supplies, instruments per client visit, and direct labor for counseling, insertion, removal, and resupply, if required. The model does not include costs of demand creation or training. We conducted interviews with key opinion leaders in Kenya to identify considerations for scale-up of a new LNG IUS, including strategies to overcome barriers that have contributed to low uptake of the copper intrauterine device., Results: The direct service delivery cost of Medicines360's LNG IUS per CYP compares favorably with other contraceptive methods commonly procured for public-sector distribution in Kenya. The cost is slightly lower than that of the 3-month contraceptive injectable, which is currently the most popular method in Kenya. Almost all key opinion leaders agreed that introducing a more affordable LNG IUS could increase demand and uptake of the method. They thought that women seeking the product's non-contraceptive health benefits would be a key market segment, and most agreed that the reduced menstrual bleeding associated with the method would likely be viewed as an advantage. The key opinion leaders indicated that myths and misconceptions among providers and clients about IUDs must be addressed, and that demand creation and provider training should be prioritized., Conclusion: Introducing a new, more affordable LNG IUS product could help expand choice for women in Kenya and increase use of long-acting reversible contraception. Further evaluation is needed to identify the full costs required for introduction-including the cost of demand creation-as well as research among potential and actual LNG IUS users, their partners, and health care providers to help inform scale-up of the method., (© Rademacher et al.)

Emergency contraception (EC) may help prevent pregnancy in various circumstances, such as contraceptive method failure, unprotected sexual intercourse, or sexual assault, yet it remains underused. There are 4 approved EC options in the United States. Although ulipristal acetate requires a provider's prescription, oral levonorgestrel (LNG) is available over the counter for women of all ages. The most effective method of EC is the copper intrauterine device, which can be left in place for up to 10 years for efficacious, cost-effective, hormone-free, and convenient long-term primary contraception. Ulipristal acetate tends to be more efficacious in pregnancy prevention than is LNG, especially when taken later than 72 hours postcoitus. The mechanism of action of oral EC is delay of ovulation, and current evidence reveals that it is ineffective postovulation. Women who weigh more than 75 kg or have a body mass index greater than 25 kg/m(2) may have a higher risk of unintended pregnancy when using oral LNG EC; therefore, ulipristal acetate or copper intrauterine devices are preferable in this setting. Providers are often unaware of the range of EC options or are unsure of how to counsel patients regarding the access and use of EC. This article critically reviews current EC literature, summarizes recommendations, and provides guidance for counseling women about EC. Useful tips for health care providers are provided, with a focus on special populations, including breast-feeding women and those transitioning to long-term contraception after EC use. When treating women of reproductive age, clinicians should be prepared to counsel them about EC options, provide EC appropriately, and, if needed, refer for EC in a timely manner., (Copyright © 2016 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel in minors in France, and analyze whether it is worthwhile to provide ulipristal acetate to minors free of charge., Methods: The cost-effectiveness of two emergency contraceptive methods was compared based on a decision-analytical model. Pregnancy rates, outcomes of unintended pregnancies, and resource utilization were derived from the literature. Resources and their costs were considered until termination or a few days after delivery. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed., Results: The cost of an unintended pregnancy in a French minor is estimated to be 1,630 € (range 1,330 € - 1,803 €). Almost 4 million € (3.1 € - 13.7 € million) in unintended pregnancy spending in 2010 could have been saved by the use of ulipristal acetate instead of levonorgestrel. The incremental cost of ulipristal acetate compared to levonorgestrel is 3.30 € per intake, or 418 € per pregnancy avoided (intake within 72 hours). In the intake within 24 hours subgroup, ulipristal acetate was found to be more efficacious at a lower cost compared to levonorgestrel., Conclusions: Ulipristal acetate dominates levonorgestrel when taken within 24 hours after unprotected intercourse, i.e., it is more effective at a lower cost. When taken within 72 hours, ulipristal acetate is a cost- effective alternative to levonorgestrel, given that the cost of avoiding an additional pregnancy with ulipristal acetate is less than the average cost of these pregnancies. In the light of these findings, it is worthwhile to provide free access to minors.

Background: The extra-welfarist theoretical framework tends to focus on health-related quality of life, whilst the welfarist framework captures a wider notion of well-being. EQ-5D and SF-6D are commonly used to value outcomes in chronic conditions with episodic symptoms, such as heavy menstrual bleeding (clinically termed menorrhagia). Because of their narrow-health focus and the condition's periodic nature these measures may be unsuitable. A viable alternative measure is willingness to pay (WTP) from the welfarist framework., Objective: We explore the use of WTP in a preliminary cost-benefit analysis comparing pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia., Methods: A cost-benefit analysis was carried out based on an outcome of WTP. The analysis is based in the UK primary care setting over a 24-month time period, with a partial societal perspective. Ninety-nine women completed a WTP exercise from the ex-ante (pre-treatment/condition) perspective. Maximum average WTP values were elicited for two pharmaceutical treatments, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and oral treatment. Cost data were offset against WTP and the net present value derived for treatment. Qualitative information explaining the WTP values was also collected., Results: Oral treatment was indicated to be the most cost-beneficial intervention costing £107 less than LNG-IUS and generating £7 more benefits. The mean incremental net present value for oral treatment compared with LNG-IUS was £113. The use of the WTP approach was acceptable as very few protests and non-responses were observed., Conclusion: The preliminary cost-benefit analysis results recommend oral treatment as the first-line treatment for menorrhagia. The WTP approach is a feasible alternative to the conventional EQ-5D/SF-6D approaches and offers advantages by capturing benefits beyond health, which is particularly relevant in menorrhagia.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a novel intrauterine system, levonorgestrel intrauterine system 13.5 mg vs. oral contraception, in women at risk of unintended pregnancy., Design: Cost-effectiveness model using efficacy and discontinuation data from published articles., Setting: Societal perspective including direct and indirect costs., Population: Women at risk of unintended pregnancy using reversible contraception., Methods: An economic analysis was conducted by modeling the different health states of women using contraception over a 3-year period. Typical use efficacy rates from published articles were used to determine unintended pregnancy events. Discontinuation rates were used to account for method switching., Main Outcome Measures: Cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of the incremental cost per unintended pregnancy avoided. In addition, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year was calculated., Results: Levonorgestrel intrauterine system 13.5 mg generated costs savings of € 311,000 in a cohort of 1000 women aged 15-44 years. In addition, there were fewer unintended pregnancies (55 vs. 294) compared with women using oral contraception., Conclusion: Levonorgestrel intrauterine system 13.5 mg is a cost-effective method when compared with oral contraception. A shift in contraceptive use from oral contraception to long-acting reversible contraception methods could result in fewer unintended pregnancies, quality-adjusted life-year gains, as well as cost savings., (© 2015 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).)

Objective: To compare the effectiveness and costs associated with first-line medical treatments for chronic heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) in Spain., Study Design: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) with the estradiol valerate/dienogest multiphase oral contraceptive (E2V/DNG), combined oral contraceptives (COC) and progestins (PROG). Study patients were fertile women diagnosed with HMB who initially wished to remain fertile. A Markov model based on reported clinical data and the opinion of a panel of experts was used. The time horizon of the analysis was 5 years. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS), discounting both costs (€ 2013) and future effects at an annual rate of 3%. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to test the robustness of the results., Results: In the analysis at 5 years, the LNG-IUS was associated with a gain of 0.67, 2.22, and 3.53 symptoms free months (SFM) compared with E2V/DNG, COC and PROG, respectively. LNG-IUS contributed more quality-adjusted life months (QALM) than the other treatment alternatives (+1.74 vs. E2V/DNG, +3.33 vs. COC +3.53 vs. PROG). First-line LNG-IUS treatment resulted in savings of € 583, € 988, and € 1891 vs. E2V/DNG, COC and PROG, respectively. These cost benefits, coupled with the greater clinical benefits in terms of SFM and QALM, show that LNG-IUS is the dominant option (less costly and more effective)., Conclusion: LNG-IUS is the medical treatment of choice and cost-saving option for the control of HMB in Spain., (Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.)

Intrauterine contraceptive devices and the progestin implant are the most effective long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) methods available for preventing unintended pregnancy. LARC devices are safe, non-user-dependent methods that have the highest rates of continuation and satisfaction of all reversible contraceptives. Use of these contraceptives remains low in the United States due to several barriers including: misperceptions among both providers and patients; cost barriers; and patient access to the devices. Increasing the opportunities for women to access LARC methods in the primary care, postabortion, and postpartum setting can be achieved by addressing the system, provider, and patient barriers that exist.

Unintended pregnancy is reportedly higher in active duty women; therefore, we sought to estimate the potential impact of the levonorgestrel-containing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) could have on unintended pregnancy in active duty women. A decision tree model with sensitivity analysis was used to estimate the number of unintentional pregnancies in active duty women which could be prevented. A secondary cost analysis was performed to analyze the direct cost savings to the U.S. Government. The total number of Armed Services members is estimated to be over 1.3 million, with an estimated 208,146 being women. Assuming an age-standardized unintended pregnancy rate of 78 per 1,000 women, 16,235 unintended pregnancies occur each year. Using a combined LNG-IUS failure and expulsion rate of 2.2%, a decrease of 794, 1588, and 3970 unintended pregnancies was estimated to occur with 5%, 10% and 25% usage, respectively. Annual cost savings from LNG-IUS use range from $3,387,107 to $47,352,295 with 5% to 25% intrauterine device usage. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated LNG-IUS to be cost-effective when the cost associated with pregnancy and delivery exceeded $11,000. Use of LNG-IUS could result in significant reductions in unintended pregnancy among active duty women, resulting in substantial cost savings to the government health care system., (Reprint & Copyright © 2014 Association of Military Surgeons of the U.S.)

Background: Pharmacy access to emergency contraception (EC) could involve men in pregnancy prevention. The objectives were to assess the availability and cost of EC., Study Design: Male mystery shoppers visited 158 pharmacies in three neighborhoods in New York City. They asked for EC and its cost and noted weekend hours., Results: Twenty-two (73.3%) of 30 pharmacies created barriers to get EC. The cost of EC was higher in the higher-socioeconomic status (SES) neighborhood (p<.001), and the higher-SES neighborhood pharmacies had a greater number of weekend hours (p<.001)., Conclusions: Overall, males had a 20% probability of not being able to access EC. The national dialogue should include males., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Ulipristal acetate (UPA) is a novel form of emergency contraception (EC) that appears to be more effective than the prevailing method, single-dose levonorgestrel (LNG). This study examines the cost-efficacy of UPA compared with LNG., Study Design: A decision-analytic model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of UPA versus LNG in preventing unintended pregnancy when taken within 120 h of unprotected intercourse. Univariate and bivariate sensitivity analyses, as well as Monte Carlo simulation and threshold analyses, were performed., Results: Utilizing UPA instead of LNG would result in 37,589 fewer unintended pregnancies per 4,176,572 estimated US annual EC uses (UPA 54,295 pregnancies; LNG 91,884 pregnancies) and a societal savings of $116.3 million annually. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve analyses suggest a 96% probability that UPA is more cost-effective at a willingness to pay $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year., Conclusions: UPA is cost-effective in preventing unintended pregnancy after unprotected intercourse. Efforts should be promoted to increase access to UPA., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Heavy menstrual bleeding negatively impacts the health and quality of life of about 18 million women in the United States. Although some studies have established the clinical effectiveness of heavy menstrual bleeding treatments, few have evaluated their cost-effectiveness. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) compared with other therapies for idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding., Methods: We developed a model comparing the clinical and economic outcomes (from a US payer perspective) of three broad initial treatment strategies over 5 years: LNG-IUS, oral agents, or surgery. Up to three nonsurgical treatment lines, followed by up to two surgical lines, were allowed; unintended pregnancy was possible, and women could discontinue any time during nonsurgical treatments. Menstrual blood loss of 80 ml or more per cycle determined treatment failure., Results: Initiating treatment with LNG-IUS resulted in the fewest hysterectomies (6 per 1000 women), the most quality-adjusted life-years (3.78), and the lowest costs ($1137) among all the nonsurgical strategies. Initiating treatment with LNG-IUS was also less costly than surgery, resulted in fewer hysterectomies (vs. 9 per 1000 for ablation) but was associated with fewer quality-adjusted life-years gained per patient (vs. 3.80 and 3.88 for ablation and hysterectomy, respectively). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results., Conclusions: LNG-IUS resulted in the lowest treatment costs and the fewest number of hysterectomies performed over 5 years compared with all other initial strategies and resulted in the most quality-adjusted life-years gained among nonsurgical options. Initial treatment with LNG-IUS is the least costly and most effective option for women desiring to preserve their fertility., (Copyright © 2013 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC)—intrauterine devices and the contraceptive implant—are safe and appropriate contraceptive methods for most women and adolescents. The LARC methods are top-tier contraceptives based on effectiveness, with pregnancy rates of less than 1% per year for perfect use and typical use. These contraceptives have the highest rates of satisfaction and continuation of all reversible contraceptives. Adolescents are at high risk of unintended pregnancy and may benefit from increased access to LARC methods.

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is the most common complaint of women seeking gynecological care. Treatments included surgical or medical options including hysterectomy and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) due to the profound suppression of endometrial growth that intrauterine LNG exerts which results in amenorrhea or in a reduction of blood loss., Objective: The study was conducted to evaluate the resources and procedures involved in inserting an LNG-IUS compared to performing hysterectomy in women with HMB in a public sector hospital in Brazil., Study Design: Two cohorts of women were studied: women who accepted an LNG-IUS (n=124) and matched women who underwent hysterectomy on the same day (n=122). We evaluate the number of procedures carried out in each group of women, including those performed before the decision was made to insert an LNG-IUS or to perform hysterectomy, the insertion of the device itself and the surgical procedure, in addition to the procedures and complications registered up to 1 year after LNG-IUS insertion or hysterectomy., Results: Age and the duration of HMB were significantly lower in the LNG-IUS acceptors than women at the hysterectomy group. The numbers of gynecological consultations and Pap smears were similar in both groups; however, women in the hysterectomy group also underwent laboratory tests, ultrasonography, chest X-ray and electrocardiogram. In the hysterectomy group, the main complications were hemorrhage (six), bladder/bowel perforation (four), complications with anesthesia (one), ureteral reimplantation required (one) and abdominal pain (two). At 1 year, HMB was controlled in 83.1% of women in the LNG-IUS group, and 106 women continued with the device., Conclusions: Both treatments were effective in HMB control. Fewer resources and complications were observed in LNG-IUS acceptors when compared to hysterectomy. The LNG-IUS represents a good strategy for reducing the number of hysterectomies and the resources required for women with HMB., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Use of evidence-based practices that are both cost-effective and acceptable to patients is now a focus in health care. Considerable cost savings can be realized by reducing unintended pregnancies and improving control of menstrual-related morbidity. The levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS), often referred to by its brand name Mirena, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration both for contraception and fortreating abnormal uterine bleeding. The device has been available in the United States since 2000 and has been used in Europe since 1990. Despite the fact that several evidence-based guidelines include use of the LNG-IUS, it remains underutilized in this country. This article reviews the benefits of the LNG-IUS as they pertain to women's health and to the cost of health care.

Purpose of Review: This review presents the most up-to-date information regarding available methods, safety, efficacy, and availability of emergency contraception for adolescents., Recent Findings: Recent reanalysis suggests that previously reported efficacy rates for the levonorgestrel-only method emergency contraception were probably overestimated. A newer and more efficacious method of emergency contraception, ulipristal acetate, was FDA approved in August 2010., Summary: Emergency contraception provides young women with an opportunity to prevent pregnancy in the event of unprotected sexual intercourse. Several dedicated products are available commercially in the USA with varying efficacy rates. Barriers, including cost and accessing emergency contraception within the designated time frame, often prevent use among young women., ((C) 2011 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.)

Objective: To undertake a cost effectiveness analysis comparing first and second generation endometrial ablative techniques, hysterectomy, and the levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) for treating heavy menstrual bleeding., Design: Model based economic evaluation with data from an individual patient data meta-analysis supplemented with cost and outcome data from published sources taking an NHS (National Health Service) perspective. A state transition (Markov) model was developed, the structure being informed by the reviews of the trials and clinical input. A subgroup analysis, one way sensitivity analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also carried out., Population: Four hypothetical cohorts of women with heavy menstrual bleeding., Interventions: One of four alternative strategies: Mirena, first or second generation endometrial ablation techniques, or hysterectomy., Main Outcome Measures: Cost effectiveness based on incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY)., Results: Hysterectomy is the preferred strategy for the first intervention for heavy menstrual bleeding. Although hysterectomy is more expensive, it produces more QALYs relative to other remaining strategies and is likely to be considered cost effective. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for hysterectomy compared with Mirena is £1440 (€1633, $2350) per additional QALY. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for hysterectomy compared with second generation ablation is £970 per additional QALY., Conclusion: In light of the acceptable thresholds used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, hysterectomy would be considered the preferred strategy for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. The results concur with those of other studies but are highly sensitive to utility values used in the analysis.

Objective: The aim of this project was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hysterectomy, first- and second-generation endometrial ablation (EA), and Mirena® (Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding., Design: Individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of existing randomised controlled trials to determine the short- to medium-term effects of hysterectomy, EA and Mirena. A population-based retrospective cohort study based on record linkage to investigate the long-term effects of ablative techniques and hysterectomy in terms of failure rates and complications. Cost-effectiveness analysis of hysterectomy versus first- and second-generation ablative techniques and Mirena., Setting: Data from women treated for heavy menstrual bleeding were obtained from national and international trials. Scottish national data were obtained from the Scottish Information Services Division., Participants: Women who were undergoing treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding were included., Interventions: Hysterectomy, first- and second-generation EA, and Mirena., Main Outcome Measures: Satisfaction, recurrence of symptoms, further surgery and costs., Results: Data from randomised trials indicated that at 12 months more women were dissatisfied with first-generation EA than hysterectomy [odds ratio (OR): 2.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.54 to 3.93; p = 0.0002), but hospital stay [WMD (weighted mean difference) 3.0 days, 95% CI 2.9 to 3.1 days; p < 0.00001] and time to resumption of normal activities (WMD 5.2 days, 95% CI 4.7 to 5.7 days; p < 0.00001) were longer for hysterectomy. Unsatisfactory outcomes associated with first- and second-generation techniques were comparable [12.2% (123/1006) vs 10.6% (110/1034); OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.62; p = 0.2). Rates of dissatisfaction with Mirena and second-generation EA were similar [18.1% (17/94) vs 22.5% (23/102); OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.53; p = 0.4]. Indirect estimates suggested that hysterectomy was also preferable to second-generation EA (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.24; p = 0.006) in terms of patient dissatisfaction. The evidence to suggest that hysterectomy is preferable to Mirena was weaker (OR 2.22, 95% CI 0.94 to 5.29; p = 0.07). In women treated by EA or hysterectomy and followed up for a median [interquartile range (IQR)] duration of 6.2 (2.7-10.8) and 11.6 (7.9-14.8) years, respectively, 962/11,299 (8.5%) women originally treated by EA underwent further gynaecological surgery. While the risk of adnexal surgery was similar in both groups [adjusted hazards ratio 0.80 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.15)], women who had undergone ablation were less likely to need pelvic floor repair [adjusted hazards ratio 0.62 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.77)] and tension-free vaginal tape surgery for stress urinary incontinence [adjusted hazards ratio 0.55 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.74)]. Abdominal hysterectomy led to a lower chance of pelvic floor repair surgery [hazards ratio 0.54 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.64)] than vaginal hysterectomy. The incidence of endometrial cancer following EA was 0.02%. Hysterectomy was the most cost-effective treatment. It dominated first-generation EA and, although more expensive, produced more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than second-generation EA and Mirena. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for hysterectomy compared with Mirena and hysterectomy compared with second-generation ablation were £1440 per additional QALY and £970 per additional QALY, respectively., Conclusions: Despite longer hospital stay and time to resumption of normal activities, more women were satisfied after hysterectomy than after EA. The few data available suggest that Mirena is potentially cheaper and more effective than first-generation ablation techniques, with rates of satisfaction that are similar to second-generation techniques. Owing to a paucity of trials, there is limited evidence to suggest that hysterectomy is preferable to Mirena. The risk of pelvic floor surgery is higher in women treated by hysterectomy than by ablation. Although the most cost-effective strategy, hysterectomy may not be considered an initial option owing to its invasive nature and higher risk of complications. Future research should focus on evaluation of the clinical effectivesness and cost-effectiveness of the best second-generation EA technique under local anaesthetic versus Mirena and types of hysterectomy such as laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy versus conventional hysterectomy and second-generation EA., Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Objective: To review the literature for economic and health-related quality of life outcomes data associated with the use of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in the management of heavy menstrual bleeding., Methods: We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases simultaneously using the Ovid interface to review the literature in a systematic manner for economic and health-related quality of life outcomes data associated with the use of the LNG-IUS in women with heavy menstrual bleeding. Articles were then selected for further review based on the relevance of their titles and/or abstracts. We identified 17 articles for inclusion in this review., Results: Treating heavy menstrual bleeding with the LNG-IUS was found to be cost-effective in various countries and settings. Moreover, irrespective of the measuring instrument used, health-related quality-of-life outcomes were found to be improved to a degree similar to that achieved with endometrial ablation or hysterectomy. In some cases, the LNG-IUS appeared to be more effective and less costly than the surgical options., Conclusion: The LNG-IUS is a cost-effective treatment option for heavy menstrual bleeding when pharmacologic treatment is indicated., (Copyright © 2010 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the cost and effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) versus combined oral contraception (COC) and progestogens (PROG) in first-line treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB) in Spain., Study Design: A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of LNG-IUS, COC and PROG was carried out using a Markov model based on clinical data from the literature and expert opinion. The population studied were women with a previous diagnosis of idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding. The analysis was performed from the National Health System perspective, discounting both costs and future effects at 3%. In addition, a sensitivity analysis (univariate and probabilistic) was conducted., Results: The results show that the greater efficacy of LNG-IUS translates into a gain of 1.92 and 3.89 symptom-free months (SFM) after six months of treatment versus COC and PROG, respectively (which represents an increase of 33% and 60% of symptom-free time). Regarding costs, LNG-IUS produces savings of € 174.2-309.95 and € 230.54-577.61 versus COC and PROG, respectively, after 6 months-5 years. Apart from cost savings and gains in SFM, quality-adjusted life months (QALM) are also favourable to LNG-IUS in all scenarios, with a range of gains between 1 and 2 QALM compared to COC and PROG., Conclusions: The results indicate that first-line use of the LNG-IUS is the dominant therapeutic option (less costly and more effective) in comparison with first-line use of COC or PROG for the treatment of DUB in Spain. LNG-IUS as first line is also the option that provides greatest health-related quality of life to patients., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To determine the acceptance of Norplant implants while it was in use and share our experience with other Norplant providers., Design: Retrospective descriptive study., Setting: The family planning clinic of the Jos University Teaching Hospital, Jos, Nigeria., Results: During the 21-year period, January 1985 to December 2005, a total of eighteen thousand, two hundred and ninety one (18,291) new clients accepted various modern contraceptive methods in the family planning clinic of Jos University Teaching Hospital, Nigeria. Norplant was accepted by 1,333 clients (4.9%) as against the intrauterine devices (IUDs) 25.4%, and Oral Contraceptive Pills (OCP) 22.9%. Female sterilisation was a contraceptive method of choice in 21.2%, the injectables in 13.9%, and the male condom in 9.3%. Failure rate was 0.37% and continuity rate was high among users. The Norplant contraceptive implant was accepted by women of mean age of 29.6 years and women of all parity. The acceptance pattern demonstrated a multi-nodal pattern from the time of introduction in 1985 to December 2005 when supply came to an abrupt stop. The greatest barriers to Norplant use were non- availability and high cost of the commodity., Conclusion: Norplantimplants provided contraceptive protection with high reliability, safety, independence from user compliance, rapid return of pre-existing fertility after removal, good tolerability, and relatively simple and quick insertion and removal. The capsules will definitely be used as a reference for similar contraceptive products in the contraceptive market.

Background and Methodology: Emergency hormonal contraception (EHC) can reduce unintended pregnancy and the associated costs and consequences for the individual and National Health Service (NHS). Levonorgestrel (LNG 1.5 mg) is currently the standard of care in the UK; however, it is not licensed for use >72 hours after unprotected sexual intercourse (UPSI). This cost-effectiveness analysis compares LNG 1.5 mg with ulipristal acetate (UPA) (ellaOne(®)), a new emergency hormonal contraceptive that is licensed for use up to 120 hours post-UPSI. The costs of both drugs and the costs of the consequences of unintended pregnancy - namely miscarriage, induced abortion and birth - are compared in a decision model from the perspective of the UK NHS., Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is the cost of preventing one additional unintended pregnancy with UPA and is calculated to be £311 compared to LNG 1.5 mg when taken up to 120 hours post-UPSI. In sensitivity analysis, looking at different time frames and costs, the ICER ranges from £183 to £500. All these costs are less than the estimated cost of an unintended pregnancy (£948) regardless of the outcome or the cost of an induced abortion (£672)., Discussion and Conclusions: Even when considering only the direct costs of an unintended pregnancy, UPA represents value for money as a method of EHC when taken up to 120 hours post-UPSI. UPA is a cost-effective alternative to LNG 1.5 mg for all women presenting for EHC.

This essay examines the history of Norplant from its development in the 1960s, to its approval by the FDA in 1990, through its tumultuous reception in American society, to its removal from the market in 2000. The rejection of Norplant by women was influenced by the social and political climate of the 1990s, in which a feminist health agenda, a consumerist ideology in health care, a growing tendency toward class action litigation, and increasing distrust of the pharmaceutical industry worked together to empower women to take charge of their reproductive decision making. The rhetoric of population control in the 1960s, when the pill and IUD were introduced, was very different from the language of individual choice that dominated in the 1990s, the era of Norplant. This investigation of Norplant extends the historical analysis of reproductive politics to the very end of the twentieth century.

Background: The study was conducted to estimate the relative cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States from a payer's perspective., Methods: A Markov model was constructed to simulate costs for 16 contraceptive methods and no method over a 5-year period. Failure rates, adverse event rates and resource utilization were derived from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed on costs and failure rates., Results: Any contraceptive method is superior to "no method". The three least expensive methods were the copper-T intrauterine device (IUD) (US$647), vasectomy (US$713) and levonorgestrel (LNG)-20 intrauterine system (IUS) (US$930). Results were sensitive to the cost of contraceptive methods, the cost of an unintended pregnancy and plan disenrollment rates., Conclusion: The copper-T IUD, vasectomy and the LNG-20 IUS are the most cost-effective contraceptive methods available in the United States. Differences in method costs, the cost of an unintended pregnancy and time horizon are influential factors that determine the overall value of a contraceptive method.

Objective: The objective of the study was to determine whether the 2006 Food and Drug Administration approval of Plan B for behind-the-counter status increased availability., Study Design: We conducted a survey in 2005 and 2007 of pharmacies listed in Atlanta, GA, Boston, MA, and Philadelphia, PA. We measured ability to dispense Plan B within 24 hours. Also measured were reasons for lack of availability and cost of Plan B., Results: Pharmacists were interviewed at 1087 pharmacies (75% response rate) in 2005 and 795 pharmacies (82% response rate) in 2007. In 2007, 8% of pharmacies were unable to provide Plan B within 24 hours, compared with 23% of pharmacies in 2005 (P < .001). The total refusal rate in 2007 was half the rate of 2005 (2% vs 4%, P = .004). The average cost of Plan B was $43., Conclusion: Availability of Plan B in Atlanta and Philadelphia increased after it was awarded behind-the-counter status.

Background: Long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods are highly effective in preventing unintended pregnancies. However, their uptake is low in much of the developed world. This study aimed at assessing the cost-effectiveness of LARC methods from the British National Health Service (NHS) perspective., Methods: A decision-analytic model was constructed to estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of the copper intrauterine device (IUD), the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS), the etonogestrel subdermal implant and the depot medroxyprogesterone acetate injection (DMPA). Comparisons with the combined oral contraceptive pill (COC) and female sterilization were also performed. Effectiveness data were derived from a systematic literature review. Costs were based on UK national sources and expert opinion., Results: LARC methods dominated COC (i.e. they were more effective and less costly). Female sterilization dominated LARC methods beyond 5 years of contraceptive protection. DMPA and LNG-IUS were the least cost-effective LARC methods. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of implant (most effective LARC method) versus IUD (cheapest LARC method) was pound13 206 per unintended pregnancy averted for 1 year of use and decreased until implant dominated IUD in 15 years. Discontinuation was a key determinant of the cost-effectiveness of LARC methods., Conclusions: LARC methods are cost-effective from the British NHS perspective. Practices improving user satisfaction and continuation of LARC method use should be identified and promoted.

Background: Emergency contraception (EC) can potentially reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions. However, these agents are underused due to lack of awareness and barriers to utilization. While earlier economic evaluations have indicated that use of EC is potentially cost-effective, recent evidence of a lower risk of pregnancy following unprotected intercourse than previously reported suggest prior studies may have over-estimated cost savings., Objectives: To model cost savings and pregnancy-related outcomes associated with the policy change authorizing pharmacist provision of EC in British Columbia, and to estimate the costs of initiatives to further women's awareness and utilization of EC that would result., Methods: Three decision analytic models were developed evaluating current EC utilization (physician-only), EC utilization following pharmacist provision and potential expanded EC awareness and utilization following a public awareness initiative. Models were developed from the Ministry of Health perspective for 2001 using cost and event data from the Ministry supplemented by data from the literature., Results: Current EC utilization saved the Ministry $2.20 million (95% CR: $0.15 million, $4.90 million) in medical costs the first year, and incremental savings from pharmacist provision was $0.64 million (95% CR: $0.24 million, $1.28 million). A public awareness initiative costing less than $2.57 million (95% CR: $0.22 million, $5.75 million) annually is potentially cost saving., Conclusions: Pharmacist provision of EC was cost saving to the Ministry, even when the estimated risk of pregnancy in the population is less than assumed in previous studies. Increasing EC availability directly from pharmacists and increasing EC awareness have the potential to reduce health care costs.

Objective: To estimate the cost-utility of levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS; Mirena) compared to second generation endometrial ablative techniques [i.e. microwave endometrial ablation (MEA) and thermal balloon endometrial ablation (TBEA)) and hysterectomy in the UK., Methods: Clinical and utility data from a 5-year randomised controlled trial comparing LNG-IUS with hysterectomy were combined with further data from published studies to construct a state-transition (Markov) model. The model depicted the movement of patients between health states over 5 years following treatment for menorrhagia. The model was used to estimate the cost-utility of LNG-IUS followed by ablation (L-A); LNG-IUS followed by hysterectomy (L-H); immediate ablation (MEA or TBEA) and immediate hysterectomy in the UK at 2004/2005 prices, from the perspective of the UK's National Health Service (NHS)., Main Outcome Measures and Results: The expected 5-yearly cost of treating menorrhagia with L-A, L-H, TBEA, MEA and hysterectomy was estimated to be 828 pounds sterling, 1355 pounds sterling, 1679 pounds sterling, 1812 pounds sterling and 2983 pounds sterling per patient respectively and the expected level of health gain to be 4.14, 4.12, 4.13, 4.13 and 4.01 QALYs per patient respectively. LNG-IUS followed by ablation dominated all the alternative treatments. Hysterectomy was dominated by the alternative treatments. Sensitivity analysis found the model to be sensitive to the quality of life data used., Conclusion: Within the model's limitations, LNGIUS followed by ablation appears to offer the NHS a cost-effective treatment for menorrhagia, when compared to immediate surgery, affording the NHS a less expensive treatment modality without detrimental effects on resulting health gain.

Background: Since introducing Norplant over 20 years ago in Kenya, demand for contraceptive implants has remained high and implant costs are dropping substantially., Methods: An assessment of the Kenyan experience with implants was conducted to understand level of demand, capacity to provide services and reproductive health impact of possible increased use. Interviews were conducted with 35 key Kenyan informants. By modeling increases in national implant use (at the expense of oral contraceptives), reductions in the annual number of unintended pregnancies were estimated., Results: Kenya has an unmet need for implants and the current network of trained providers appears ready to increase the volume of services. If 100,000 users of oral contraceptives switch to implants, then an estimated 26,000 unintended pregnancies can be averted over a 5-year period., Conclusion: With increased purchases of implants by international donor agencies, Kenya can reduce reliance on short-term hormonal methods and reduce the 45% prevalence rate of unintended pregnancy.

Background: Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are the most widely used reversible contraceptives in the world today, and decisions about their use should reflect the best available evidence., Study Design: We performed a computer search of the Cochrane Library for all IUD-related reviews., Results: Eleven reviews related to IUDs have been registered in The Cochrane Library; 10 have been completed, and one is in progress. Topics include type of IUD, timing of insertion, clinical management, emergency contraception and use as gynecological treatment. The copper T380A is the most effective copper IUD; the levonorgestrel intrauterine system has efficacy comparable to that of IUDs with >250 mm(2) of copper. The frameless device may be comparable in efficacy to the copper T380A, although whether problems with the initial inserter are resolved is unclear. Immediate postpartum and postabortal insertion appears safe and effective, although trials comparing immediate to delayed insertions are scarce. Prophylactic antibiotics at the time of insertion appear unwarranted except in populations with a high prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases. Many nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduce pain and bleeding associated with IUDs, although prophylactic use of ibuprofen does not improve continuation rates. The levonorgestrel system is superior to oral progestins in treating heavy uterine bleeding. This IUD compares favorably with endometrial ablation techniques and presents an alternative to hysterectomy for many women., Discussion: Trials are needed to evaluate immediate vs. delayed insertion after delivery or abortion and to explore emerging therapeutic uses of the levonorgestrel system, such as treatment of endometrial hyperplasia.

Menorrhagia is a common disorder that requires plenty of resources. Rapid developments in medical technology have resulted in new management strategies, which are true alternatives to hysterectomy. In many countries the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and endometrial destruction techniques are available for menorrhagia. Clinicians must answer questions about cost, effectiveness and quality of medical care when choosing the treatment option. This review integrates the results from the latest studies and review articles about LNG-IUS and endometrial destruction techniques by addressing the key clinical issues in menorrhagia. Both LNG-IUS and endometrial ablation seem to be good and effective alternative options to hysterectomy. Although these treatments have relatively high failure rates, the majority of women are satisfied and the cost-effectiveness of these treatments are better than that of hysterectomy. Both treatments have their advantages and disadvantages. Thus far LNG-IUS seems to be more cost-effective than endometrial resection or hysterectomy at 5 years follow-up. However, second generation ablation techniques may offer better cost-effectiveness than the first generation techniques, but the evidence is insufficient.

Objective: This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of oral contraceptives (OCs), the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and surgical management in treating dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB) in women not desiring additional children., Method: A Markov model was constructed from the perspective of the health services payers for a 5-year period. Treatment costs, DUB treatment success rates and contraception success rates were obtained through a literature review., Results: In women not responding to an initial trial of OCs, surgical management was more effective than the LNG-IUS (95.5% vs. 92%) but at higher cost (US$4853 vs. US$2796 per woman). Among responders to OCs, continuing treatment with the LNG-IUS instead of OCs was more effective (92% vs. 90.4%) and less expensive (US$2796 vs. US$4711). For women naïve to medical therapy, the LNG-IUS and OCs had similar effectiveness, but cost for the LNG-IUS was lower (US$2796 vs. US$4895). In all scenarios, surgery followed if medical therapy failed; rates of primary method failure were 62.5% with OCs and 34% with the LNG-IUS at 12 months., Conclusions: Treatment strategies employing the LNG-IUS are the most cost-effective in managing DUB, regardless of whether a woman has previously tried OC therapy.

Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness of levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) (Mirena; Schering Co., Turku, Finland) and thermal balloon ablation (Thermachoicetrade mark; Gynecare Inc., Menlo Park, CA, USA) for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding., Design: An open, pragmatic, prospective randomised trial., Setting: A menstrual disorders clinic at National Women's Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand., Population: Seventy-nine women with self-defined heavy menstrual bleeding randomised to the LNG-IUS (40 women) or the thermal balloon ablation (39 women)., Methods: Decision tree modelling using primary source data was used to identify the incremental cost-effectiveness of the two treatments., Main Outcome Measures: Direct and indirect costs of medical treatment, including treatment costs, subsequent medical procedures, lost income and medical treatment for failed procedures. The change in quality of life as assessed by the Short Form-36 (SF-36) measured between time of treatment and 24 months was the primary outcome measure. Economic modelling examined the expected cost and outcome for a woman entering each treatment. Sensitivity analysis explored the robustness of the results., Results: The expected cost of treatment was $NZ1241 ($US869) for the LNG-IUS and $NZ2418 ($US1693) for the thermal balloon ablation. The LNG-IUS was associated with an increase of 15 points on the SF-36 scale, compared with 12 points for the thermal balloon ablation. Sensitivity analysis indicates that the results are robust to a 25% decrease in the price of the primary cost drivers and to variations in the rates of failed treatment between the conditions., Conclusion: The LNG-IUS would appear to be cost-effective when compared with the thermal balloon ablation for treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.

Context: Because menorrhagia is often a reason for seeking medical attention, it is important to consider outcomes and costs associated with alternative treatment modalities. Both the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and hysterectomy have proven effective for treatment of menorrhagia but there are no long-term comparative studies measuring cost and quality of life., Objective: To compare outcomes, quality-of-life issues, and costs of the LNG-IUS vs hysterectomy in the treatment of menorrhagia., Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized controlled trial conducted between October 1, 1994, and October 6, 2002, and enrolling 236 women (mean [SD] age, 43 [3.4] years) referred to 5 university hospitals in Finland for complaints of menorrhagia., Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to treatment with the LNG-IUS (n = 119) or hysterectomy (n = 117) and were monitored for 5 years., Main Outcome Measures: Health-related quality of life (HRQL) as measured by the 5-Dimensional EuroQol and the RAND 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, other measures of psychosocial well-being (anxiety, depression, and sexual function), and costs., Results: After 5 years of follow-up, 232 women (99%) were analyzed for the primary outcomes. The 2 groups did not differ substantially in terms of HRQL or psychosocial well-being. Although 50 (42%) of the women assigned to the LNG-IUS group eventually underwent hysterectomy, the discounted direct and indirect costs in the LNG-IUS group (2817 dollars [95% confidence interval, 2222 dollars-3530 dollars] per participant) remained substantially lower than in the hysterectomy group (4660 dollars [95% confidence interval, 4014 dollars-5180 dollars]). Satisfaction with treatment was similar in both groups., Conclusions: By providing improvement in HRQL at relatively low cost, the LNG-IUS may offer a wider availability of choices for the patient and may decrease costs due to interventions involving surgery.

Objective: To estimate the relative cost effectiveness for women aged > or =30 years, starting long-term hormonal contraception with either levonorgestrel intrauterine system (Mirena), etonogestrel subdermal implant (Implanon) or medroxyprogesterone acetate injection (Depo-Provera)., Design and Setting: This was a modelling study, performed from the perspective of the UK NHS, of contraceptive services supplied by a general practitioner. STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: A dataset was created from the General Practice Research database (GPRD) comprising 16 835 women aged > or =30 years who received levonorgestrel intrauterine system (n = 6080), etonogestrel subdermal implant (n = 277) or medroxyprogesterone acetate injection (n = 10 478) for their long-term contraception between 1997 and 2002., Methods: Contraception-related healthcare resource utilisation values and contraception continuation rates were obtained from the GPRD. The incidence of pregnancy associated with each contraceptive was obtained from the published literature. By combining the GPRD dataset with published clinical outcomes, a decision model was constructed. This was used to estimate the expected annualised direct healthcare costs and consequences of the provision of each type of contraception per woman-year in pounds sterling (pound) at 2002/03 prices., Results: Our model suggests that starting long-term contraception with levonorgestrel intrauterine system or etonogestrel subdermal implant instead of medroxyprogesterone acetate injection is a dominant strategy from the UK NHS perspective. In contrast, starting long-term contraception with etonogestrel subdermal implant instead of levonorgestrel intrauterine system is likely to be the least cost-effective option, since it would lead to an additional cost for each additional avoided pregnancy (pound 21,000)., Conclusion: Long-acting reversible hormonal contraception has the benefit of being extremely effective (>99%), and not reliant on patient compliance nor dependent on correct usage. The relative cost effectiveness of using any one contraceptive should be considered in the light of the additional clinical benefits it may confer, user acceptability, QOL, past medical history and the estimated cost of an unintended pregnancy. Choice of contraception is essential to meet diverse user needs and preferences that may change with the user's stage of life. Only by offering choice will the maximum number of women be protected and therefore the greatest savings to the health service be gained.