Literature DB >> 15612832

Relative cost effectiveness of Depo-Provera, Implanon, and Mirena in reversible long-term hormonal contraception in the UK.

Susan J Varney1, Julian F Guest.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15612832     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200422170-00004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  9 in total

1.  Economic analysis of long-term reversible contraceptives. Focus on Implanon.

Authors:  C J Phillips
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Revitalizing the General Practice Research Database: plans, challenges, and opportunities.

Authors:  L Wood; R Coulson
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2001 Aug-Sep       Impact factor: 2.890

3.  The cost-effectiveness of family planning service provision.

Authors:  D Hughes; A McGuire
Journal:  J Public Health Med       Date:  1996-06

4.  Open randomised study of use of levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system as alternative to hysterectomy.

Authors:  P Lähteenmäki; M Haukkamaa; J Puolakka; U Riikonen; S Sainio; J Suvisaari; C G Nilsson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-04-11

5.  The pharmacodynamics and efficacy of Implanon. An overview of the data.

Authors:  H B Croxatto; L Mäkäräinen
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 3.375

6.  The economic value of contraception: a comparison of 15 methods.

Authors:  J Trussell; J A Leveque; J D Koenig; R London; S Borden; J Henneberry; K D LaGuardia; F Stewart; T G Wilson; S Wysocki
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 7.  Compliance and other issues in contraception.

Authors:  R T Burkman
Journal:  Int J Fertil Womens Med       Date:  1999 Sep-Oct

8.  Randomised comparative trial of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system and norethisterone for treatment of idiopathic menorrhagia.

Authors:  G A Irvine; M B Campbell-Brown; M A Lumsden; A Heikkilä; J J Walker; I T Cameron
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1998-06

9.  Levonorgestrel-releasing and copper-releasing (Nova T) IUDs during five years of use: a randomized comparative trial.

Authors:  K Andersson; V Odlind; G Rybo
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 3.375

  9 in total
  11 in total

Review 1.  The role of decidual cells in uterine hemostasis, menstruation, inflammation, adverse pregnancy outcomes and abnormal uterine bleeding.

Authors:  Frederick Schatz; Ozlem Guzeloglu-Kayisli; Sefa Arlier; Umit A Kayisli; Charles J Lockwood
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 15.610

2.  Contraceptive sex acceptability: a commentary, synopsis and agenda for future research.

Authors:  Jenny A Higgins; Anne R Davis
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 3.375

3.  Celebration meets caution: LARC's boons, potential busts, and the benefits of a reproductive justice approach.

Authors:  Jenny A Higgins
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2014-02-10       Impact factor: 3.375

4.  Ensuring our research reflects our values: The role of family planning research in advancing reproductive autonomy.

Authors:  Christine Dehlendorf; Reiley Reed; Edith Fox; Dominika Seidman; Cara Hall; Jody Steinauer
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 3.375

Review 5.  Contraception for cancer survivors.

Authors:  Eleanor Bimla Schwarz; Rachel Hess; James Trussell
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States.

Authors:  James Trussell; Anjana M Lalla; Quan V Doan; Eileen Reyes; Lionel Pinto; Joseph Gricar
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2008-09-25       Impact factor: 3.375

7.  Progestins Upregulate FKBP51 Expression in Human Endometrial Stromal Cells to Induce Functional Progesterone and Glucocorticoid Withdrawal: Implications for Contraceptive- Associated Abnormal Uterine Bleeding.

Authors:  Ozlem Guzeloglu Kayisli; Umit A Kayisli; Murat Basar; Nihan Semerci; Frederick Schatz; Charles J Lockwood
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Factors influencing use of long-acting versus short-acting contraceptive methods among reproductive-age women in a resource-limited setting.

Authors:  Leevan Tibaijuka; Robert Odongo; Emma Welikhe; Wilber Mukisa; Lilian Kugonza; Imelda Busingye; Phelomena Nabukalu; Joseph Ngonzi; Stephen B Asiimwe; Francis Bajunirwe
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 2.809

9.  Is contraceptive self-injection cost-effective compared to contraceptive injections from facility-based health workers? Evidence from Uganda.

Authors:  Laura Di Giorgio; Mercy Mvundura; Justine Tumusiime; Chloe Morozoff; Jane Cover; Jennifer Kidwell Drake
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 3.375

10.  Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Uptake and Associated Factors among Women of Reproductive Age in Rural Kenya.

Authors:  Susan Ontiri; Gathari Ndirangu; Mark Kabue; Regien Biesma; Jelle Stekelenburg; Collins Ouma
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.