Cost-effectiveness analysis of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) 52 mg versus other long-acting reversible contraceptives for contraception in Spain.

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.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS; Mirena^®) is an effective and cost-saving long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) method compared with other similar methods in Spain over an eight-year time horizon, and Kyleena^® was the most effective option.

The levonorgestrel intrauterine system for prevention of endometrial cancer in women with obesity: A cost-effectiveness study.

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.

The levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

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.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of etonogestrel implants compared to long-term and short term reversible contraceptive methods in France.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of emergency contraception options over 1 year.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a low-dose contraceptive levonorgestrel intrauterine system in Sweden.

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.

Increasing LARC utilization: any woman, any place, any time.

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.

The cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for the treatment of idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding in the United States.

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.

Cost effectiveness in obstetrics and gynecology: The levonorgestrel intrauterine system.

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.

Adolescents and emergency contraception: update 2011.

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.

Comparison of Levonorgestrel-releasing Intrauterine System (LNG-IUS) against Laparoscopic Assisted Supracervical Hysterectomy (LASH) for menorrhagia treatment: An economic evaluation.

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.

Is it worth paying more for emergency hormonal contraception? The cost-effectiveness of ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel 1.5 mg.

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.

Experience with Norplant at a Nigerian teaching hospital.

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.

Ulipristal acetate compared to levonorgestrel emergency contraception among current oral contraceptive users: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

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.

The cost-effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods in the UK: analysis based on a decision-analytic model developed for a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) clinical practice guideline.

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.

Behind-the-counter status and availability of emergency contraception.

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.

Contraceptive implants in Kenya: current status and future prospects.

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.

Cochrane systematic reviews of IUD trials: lessons learned.

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.

Evaluation of quality of life and cost-effectiveness of definitive surgery and the levonorgestrel intrauterine system as treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding.

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.

Managing drug-resistant essential menorrhagia without hysterectomy.

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.