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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System (52 mg) for Idiopathic Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: A Health Technology Assessment.

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.

Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device as an Endometrial Cancer Prevention Strategy in Obese Women: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

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.

Expanding Access to a New, More Affordable Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System in Kenya: Service Delivery Costs Compared With Other Contraceptive Methods and Perspectives of Key Opinion Leaders.

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.

Emergency Contraception.

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.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Emergency Hormonal Contraception with Ulipristal Acetate versus Levonorgestrel for Minors in France.

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.

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.

Exploring the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Compare Pharmaceutical Treatments for Menorrhagia.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding in Spain.

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.

Estimated economic impact of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system on unintended pregnancy in active duty women.

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.

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.

Male access to emergency contraception in pharmacies: a mystery shopper survey.

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.

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.