ABSTRACT
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.
