James Trussell1, Fareen Hassan2, Nathaniel Henry2, Jennifer Pocoski3, Amy Law4, Anna Filonenko5. 1. Office of Population Research, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA; The Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK. 2. IMS Health, London N1 9JY, UK. 3. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Wayne, NJ 07470, USA. 4. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Wayne, NJ 07470, USA. Electronic address: amy.law@bayer.com. 5. Bayer Pharma AG, Berlin 13553, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) 13.5 mg (total content) is a low-dose levonorgestrel intrauterine system for up to 3 years of use. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of LNG-IUS 13.5 mg in comparison with short-acting reversible contraceptive (SARC) methods in a cohort of young women in the United States from a third-party payer's perspective. STUDY DESIGN: A state transition model consisting of three mutually exclusive health states -- initial method, unintended pregnancy (UP) and subsequent method -- was developed. Cost-effectiveness of LNG-IUS 13.5 mg was assessed vs. SARC methods in a cohort of 1000 women aged 20-29 years. SARC methods comprise oral contraceptives (OC), ring, patch and injections, which are the methods commonly used by this cohort. Failure and discontinuation probabilities were based on published literature, contraceptive uptake was determined by the most recent data from the National Survey of Family Growth, and costs were taken from standard US databases. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted around key inputs, while scenario analysis assessed a comparison between LNG-IUS 13.5 mg and the existing IUS, LNG-IUS 20 mcg/24 h. The key model output was cost per UP avoided. RESULTS: Compared to SARC methods, initiating contraception with LNG-IUS 13.5 mg resulted in fewer UP (64 UP vs. 276 UP) and lower total costs ($1,283,479 USD vs. $1,862,633 USD, a 31% saving) over the 3-year time horizon. Results were most sensitive to the probability of failure on OC, the probability of LNG-IUS 13.5 mg discontinuation and the cost of live births. Scenario analysis suggests that further cost savings may be generated with the initiation of LNG-IUS 20 mcg/24 h in place of SARC methods. CONCLUSIONS: From a third-party payer perspective, LNG-IUS 13.5 mg is a more cost-effective contraceptive option than SARC. Therefore, women switching from current SARC use to LNG-IUS 13.5 mg are likely to generate cost savings to third-party health care payers, driven principally by decreased UP-related expenditures and long-term savings in contraceptive costs.
BACKGROUND:Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) 13.5 mg (total content) is a low-dose levonorgestrel intrauterine system for up to 3 years of use. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of LNG-IUS 13.5 mg in comparison with short-acting reversible contraceptive (SARC) methods in a cohort of young women in the United States from a third-party payer's perspective. STUDY DESIGN: A state transition model consisting of three mutually exclusive health states -- initial method, unintended pregnancy (UP) and subsequent method -- was developed. Cost-effectiveness of LNG-IUS 13.5 mg was assessed vs. SARC methods in a cohort of 1000 women aged 20-29 years. SARC methods comprise oral contraceptives (OC), ring, patch and injections, which are the methods commonly used by this cohort. Failure and discontinuation probabilities were based on published literature, contraceptive uptake was determined by the most recent data from the National Survey of Family Growth, and costs were taken from standard US databases. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted around key inputs, while scenario analysis assessed a comparison between LNG-IUS 13.5 mg and the existing IUS, LNG-IUS 20 mcg/24 h. The key model output was cost per UP avoided. RESULTS: Compared to SARC methods, initiating contraception with LNG-IUS 13.5 mg resulted in fewer UP (64 UP vs. 276 UP) and lower total costs ($1,283,479 USD vs. $1,862,633 USD, a 31% saving) over the 3-year time horizon. Results were most sensitive to the probability of failure on OC, the probability of LNG-IUS 13.5 mg discontinuation and the cost of live births. Scenario analysis suggests that further cost savings may be generated with the initiation of LNG-IUS 20 mcg/24 h in place of SARC methods. CONCLUSIONS: From a third-party payer perspective, LNG-IUS 13.5 mg is a more cost-effective contraceptive option than SARC. Therefore, women switching from current SARC use to LNG-IUS 13.5 mg are likely to generate cost savings to third-party health care payers, driven principally by decreased UP-related expenditures and long-term savings in contraceptive costs.
Authors: Chiun Fang Chiou; James Trussell; Eileen Reyes; Kevin Knight; Joel Wallace; Jay Udani; Karen Oda; Jeff Borenstein Journal: Contraception Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Aparna Sundaram; Barbara Vaughan; Kathryn Kost; Akinrinola Bankole; Lawrence Finer; Susheela Singh; James Trussell Journal: Perspect Sex Reprod Health Date: 2017-02-28
Authors: Amy Law; Dominic Pilon; Richard Lynen; François Laliberté; Laurence Gozalo; Patrick Lefebvre; Mei Sheng Duh Journal: Reprod Health Date: 2016-08-22 Impact factor: 3.223