Continuous Norethisterone Acetate versus Cyclical Drospirenone 3 mg/Ethinyl Estradiol 20 µg for the Management of Primary Dysmenorrhea in Young Adult Women.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of continuous norethisterone acetate (NET-A), 5 mg (group N) vs cyclical combined oral contraceptive pill (COC) consisting of drospirenone 3 mg/ethinyl estradiol 20 µg pills (group P) in treating dysmenorrhea in young adult women. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective, open-label, nonrandomized study included 38 Jordanian patients: 20 patients in group N and 18 patients in group P. INTERVENTIONS: Continuous NET-A 5 mg daily or cyclical COC. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain scores, adverse effects, analgesic use, school absence, and cost. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients used NET-A or COC for 6 months. All participants had almost the same starting levels of visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Both drugs were similar in suppressing dysmenorrhea at the 3-month follow-up visit; VAS score mean (±SD) in group N and P were 1.30 ± 1.22 and 1.28 ± 0.83 (P = .22), respectively, and after 6 months, with mean VAS scores (±SD) of 1.30 ± 1.22 and 1.28 ± 0.83, respectively (P = .95). The cost of the treatment in the N group was much less than in the P group. Participants in the N group were less likely to use pain killers: 20% and 44% in the N and P groups, respectively (P = .006) in the first month and only 5% and 17% (P = .019) in the N and P groups, respectively, at the 3-month follow-up, and none of them used any analgesics at the 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: A continuous NET-A regimen is a well tolerated, effective, and inexpensive option for dysmenorrhea treatment and was as good as COC.

Norethindrone acetate or dienogest for the treatment of symptomatic endometriosis: a before and after study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the proportion of patients satisfied with their treatment before and after a systematic change from norethindrone acetate to dienogest as the first-line progestin for symptomatic endometriosis. DESIGN: Before and after study. SETTING: Academic department. PATIENT(S): The last 90 new consecutive endometriosis patients in whom norethindrone acetate was used, and the first 90 new consecutive endometriosis patients in whom dienogest was used. INTERVENTION(S): Norethindrone acetate at the oral dose of 2.5 mg once a day until June 6, 2013, then dienogest at the oral dose of 2 mg once a day thereafter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Degree of satisfaction with treatment after 6 months of progestin therapy and assessment of any variations in pain symptoms, psychological status, sexual function, or health-related quality of life associated with the introduction of dienogest. RESULT(S): The proportion of satisfied plus very satisfied women after 6 months of treatment was 71% in the "before" period (norethindrone acetate) and 72% in the "after" period (dienogest). The implementation of dienogest was not associated with statistically significant ameliorations in overall pain relief, psychological status, sexual functioning, or health-related quality of life. Treatment was well tolerated by 58% of norethindrone acetate users compared with 80% of dienogest users. After dienogest implementation, the absolute risk reduction in the occurrence of any side effect was 13.9% (95% confidence interval, 0.8%-28.6%). CONCLUSION(S): Considering the large difference in the cost of the two drugs, dienogest should be suggested selectively in women who do not tolerate norethindrone acetate.

A cost-effectiveness evaluation of two continuous-combined hormone therapies for the management of moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms.

OBJECTIVES: After the release of the results of the Women's Health Initiative, an emerging consensus suggests that continuous-combined hormone therapy (CCHT) should be limited to short-term management of moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms. This, in turn, raises the important question of the economic value, if any, of short-term CCHT for this indication. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing a 1-year treatment course with 1 mg of norethindrone acetate/5 microg of ethinyl estradiol (1/5 NA/EE) or 0.625 mg/day of conjugated estrogens plus 2.5 mg of medroxyprogesterone (0.625/2.5 CEE/MPA) compared with no therapy for the management of moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms. DESIGN: A literature-based Markov model was developed to compare these three options' cost and quality-of-life (QOL) benefits. The impact of therapy on vasomotor symptoms and breakthrough bleeding/spotting on the direct costs of care and QOL were considered. RESULTS: Compared with no therapy, CCHTs resulted in net increases in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained (0.110 for 1/5 NA/NE v 0.104 for 0.625/2.5 CEE/MPA). Net costs (v no therapy) were $167 lower for 1/5 NA/NE compared with 0.625/2.5 CEE/MPA. Cost per QALY gained (compared with no therapy) were $6,200 and $8,200, respectively. Cost-effectiveness was most favorable for individuals with more severe symptoms who were less bothered by breakthrough bleeding/spotting. CONCLUSIONS: A short-term course of CCHT for the sole purpose of managing moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms is cost-effective. However, 1/5 NA/NE seemed to be more cost-effective than 0.625/2.5 CEE/MPA. These findings can be used to further refine the role of CCHT and to improve formulary decisions.

A cost-benefit analysis of four hormonal contraceptive methods.

This paper presents the results of a cost-benefit analysis conducted for pregnancy prevention treatment with four hormonal methods of contraception using a managed-care viewpoint. The therapies analyzed are medroxy-progesterone acetate injection (Depo-Provera), levonorgestrel subdermal implants (Norplant), progestogenonly oral tablets (Nor-QD), and combination progestogen/estrogen oral tablets (Ortho-Novum 7/7/7). Cost and benefits associated with the use of therapies are identified and analyzed based on the cost per patient-day of effective pregnancy prevention. The analysis demonstrates that all four methods have a positive net benefit, with Depo-Provera having the highest net benefit. This information can provide decision makers within a pharmacy and therapeutics committee of a managed-care organization the framework on which to base formulary decisions.

Economic impact of tibolone compared with continuous-combined hormone replacement therapy. In the management of postmenopausal women with climacteric symptoms in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the economic impact of using tibolone 2.5 mg compared with 17 beta-estradiol 2 mg/norethisterone acetate 1 mg (E2/NETA) in postmenopausal women with climacteric symptoms. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a modelling study performed from the perspective of the UK's National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: The clinical outcomes from a previously reported trial were used as the clinical basis for the analysis, which showed that 48 weeks' treatment with tibolone and E2/NETA significantly alleviated the climacteric symptoms experienced by postmenopausal women. These data were combined with resource utilisation estimates derived from a panel of 10 GPs and 3 gynaecologists, enabling us to construct a Markov model depicting changes in the health status of postmenopausal women. The model was used to estimate the expected NHS costs and consequences after 48 weeks' treatment with tibolone and E2/NETA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The mean expected direct healthcare cost of using tibolone and E2/NETA to manage postmenopausal women for 48 weeks was estimated to be 260 Pounds and 239 Pounds (1997/1998 prices) per patient, respectively. Starting hormone replacement therapy (HRT) with tibolone instead of E2/NETA was equally effective in alleviating climacteric symptoms (65.9 and 62.2%, respectively; p = 0.516) over 48 weeks and significantly reduced the incidence of vaginal bleeding by 36% (p < 0.0001) and breast tenderness by 57% (p < 0.0001) for a mean additional cost of 21 Pounds (ranging between -3 Pounds and 42 Pounds) per patient. The acquisition cost of HRT was the primary cost driver for tibolone-treated patients, whereas the cost of managing adverse events was the primary cost driver for E2/NETA-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: The true cost of prescribing tibolone and E2/NETA is impacted on by a broad range of resources, not only drug acquisition costs. Although the acquisition cost of tibolone is higher than that of E2/NETA, the difference in the expected NHS cost of the first year of treatment between the 2 HRTs is negligible. This is because of the higher incidence of adverse events among E2/NETA-treated patients, which also results in a higher continuation rate among tibolone-treated patients. Factors such as patient preferences should also be taken into consideration so that treatment choices are not decided solely on the basis of acquisition costs.

Economic evaluation of norethisterone acetate/ethinylestradiol (FemHRT) for women with menopausal symptoms.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of a continuous combined oral preparation of norethisterone (norethindrone) acetate and ethinylestradiol (NA/EE) [FemHRT] as both a first-line and second-line therapy for menopausal women. PERSPECTIVE: Third-party payer. METHODS: The cost effectiveness of NA/EE was assessed as both a first- and second-line therapy in comparison with conjugated equine oestrogen 0.625mg and medroxyprogesterone acetate 2.5mg (CEE/MPA) and no therapy. Analysis was conducted within a Markov model with states relating to the presence and absence of vaginal bleeding, menopausal symptoms and hip fracture. Analysis forecasted life expectancy, QALYs and lifetime costs for a 50-year-old menopausal woman. Compliance was modelled related to menopausal symptoms and vaginal bleeding. For the base-case analysis, it was assumed that compliant women would take therapy for up to 5 years. Sensitivity analysis assumed therapy was taken only for 1 year. RESULTS: Compared with both CEE/MPA and no therapy, NA/EE led to an increase in both costs and QALYs, both as a first- and second-line therapy. For first-line therapy, the incremental cost per QALY gained for NA/EE was $2200 Canadian dollars ($Can; 1999 values) [compared with no therapy] and was $Can20 300 (compared with CEE/MPA). For second-line therapy, the incremental cost per QALY gained for NA/EE was $Can900 (compared with no therapy) and was $Can16 400 (compared with CEE/MPA). Results were robust to most sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: NA/EE is a cost-effective therapy for women with menopausal symptoms both as a first-line and second-line therapy.

Counting the costs: comparing depot medroxyprogesterone acetate and norethisterone oenanthate utilisation patterns in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: In South Africa, where health care resources are limited, it is important to ensure that drugs provision and use is rational. The Essential Drug List includes depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) and norethisterone oenanthate (NET-EN) as injectable progestagen-only contraceptives (IPCs), and both products are extensively used. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: Utilisation patterns of the injectable contraceptive products DMPA and NET-EN are compared in the context of current knowledge of the safety and efficacy of these agents. Utilisation patterns were analysed by means of a Pareto (ABC) analysis of IPCs issued from 4 South African provincial pharmaceutical depots over 3 financial years. A case study from rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, is used to examine utilisation patterns and self-reported side effects experienced by 187 women using IPCs. RESULTS: IPCs accounted for a substantial share of total state expenditure on drugs. While more DMPA than NET-EN was issued, NET-EN distribution from 2 depots increased over the 3-year period. Since DMPA was cheaper, if all NET-EN clients in the 1999/2000 financial year (annualised) had used DMPA, the 4 depots could have saved 4.95 million South African Rands on product acquisition costs alone. The KZN case study showed slightly more NET-EN (54%) than DMPA (46%) use; no significant differences in self-reported side effects; and that younger women were more likely to use NET-EN than DMPA (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Providing IPCs on the basis of age is not appropriate or cost effective. Rational use of these products should include consideration of the cost of prescribing one over another.