James Trussell1, Fareen Hassan2, Julia Lowin2, Amy Law3, Anna Filonenko4. 1. Office of Population Research, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA. 2. IMS Health, London, N1 9JY, UK. 3. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Whippany, NJ 07981, USA. Electronic address: amy.law@bayer.com. 4. Bayer Pharma AG, Berlin, 13553, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This analysis aimed to estimate the average annual cost of available reversible contraceptive methods in the United States. In line with literature suggesting long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods become increasingly cost-saving with extended duration of use, it aimed to also quantify minimum duration of use required for LARC methods to achieve cost-neutrality relative to other reversible contraceptive methods while taking into consideration discontinuation. STUDY DESIGN: A three-state economic model was developed to estimate relative costs of no method (chance), four short-acting reversible (SARC) methods (oral contraceptive, ring, patch and injection) and three LARC methods [implant, copper intrauterine device (IUD) and levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) 20 mcg/24 h (total content 52 mg)]. The analysis was conducted over a 5-year time horizon in 1000 women aged 20-29 years. Method-specific failure and discontinuation rates were based on published literature. Costs associated with drug acquisition, administration and failure (defined as an unintended pregnancy) were considered. Key model outputs were annual average cost per method and minimum duration of LARC method usage to achieve cost-savings compared to SARC methods. RESULTS: The two least expensive methods were copper IUD ($304 per women, per year) and LNG-IUS 20 mcg/24 h ($308). Cost of SARC methods ranged between $432 (injection) and $730 (patch), per women, per year. A minimum of 2.1 years of LARC usage would result in cost-savings compared to SARC usage. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis finds that even if LARC methods are not used for their full durations of efficacy, they become cost-saving relative to SARC methods within 3 years of use. IMPLICATIONS: Previous economic arguments in support of using LARC methods have been criticized for not considering that LARC methods are not always used for their full duration of efficacy. This study calculated that cost-savings from LARC methods relative to SARC methods, with discontinuation rates considered, can be realized within 3 years.
OBJECTIVES: This analysis aimed to estimate the average annual cost of available reversible contraceptive methods in the United States. In line with literature suggesting long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods become increasingly cost-saving with extended duration of use, it aimed to also quantify minimum duration of use required for LARC methods to achieve cost-neutrality relative to other reversible contraceptive methods while taking into consideration discontinuation. STUDY DESIGN: A three-state economic model was developed to estimate relative costs of no method (chance), four short-acting reversible (SARC) methods (oral contraceptive, ring, patch and injection) and three LARC methods [implant, copper intrauterine device (IUD) and levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) 20 mcg/24 h (total content 52 mg)]. The analysis was conducted over a 5-year time horizon in 1000 women aged 20-29 years. Method-specific failure and discontinuation rates were based on published literature. Costs associated with drug acquisition, administration and failure (defined as an unintended pregnancy) were considered. Key model outputs were annual average cost per method and minimum duration of LARC method usage to achieve cost-savings compared to SARC methods. RESULTS: The two least expensive methods were copper IUD ($304 per women, per year) and LNG-IUS 20 mcg/24 h ($308). Cost of SARC methods ranged between $432 (injection) and $730 (patch), per women, per year. A minimum of 2.1 years of LARC usage would result in cost-savings compared to SARC usage. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis finds that even if LARC methods are not used for their full durations of efficacy, they become cost-saving relative to SARC methods within 3 years of use. IMPLICATIONS: Previous economic arguments in support of using LARC methods have been criticized for not considering that LARC methods are not always used for their full duration of efficacy. This study calculated that cost-savings from LARC methods relative to SARC methods, with discontinuation rates considered, can be realized within 3 years.
Authors: Lauren B Messinger; Connie E Alford; John M Csokmay; Melinda B Henne; Sunni L Mumford; James H Segars; Alicia Y Armstrong Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2015-05-23 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Carla L DeSisto; Charlan D Kroelinger; Cameron Estrich; Alisa Velonis; Keriann Uesugi; David A Goodman; Ellen Pliska; Sanaa Akbarali; Kristin M Rankin Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Sharon J Phillips; Lisa G Hofler; Anna M Modest; Lara F B Harvey; Lily H Wu; Michele R Hacker Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-03-16 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Rui Li; Sascha R Ellington; Romeo R Galang; Scott D Grosse; Zipatly Mendoza; Stacey Hurst; Yari Vale; Eva Lathrop; Lisa Romero Journal: Contraception Date: 2021-11-05 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Jessica L Li; William Kilembe; Mubiana Inambao; Bellington Vwalika; Rachel Parker; Tyronza Sharkey; Ana-Maria Visoiu; Lisa B Haddad; Kristin M Wall; Susan Allen Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Charlan D Kroelinger; Ekwutosi M Okoroh; Keriann Uesugi; Lisa Romero; Olivia R Sappenfield; Julia F Howland; Shanna Cox Journal: Womens Health Issues Date: 2021-10-01