Decreasing utilization and increasing prices of brand-name oral contraceptive pills: Implications to societal costs and market competition.

The affordability of pharmaceuticals has been a major challenge in US health care. Generic substitution has been proposed as an important tool to reduce the costs, yet little is known how the prices of more expensive brand-name drugs would be affected by an increased utilization of generics. We aimed to examine the trend of overall utilization and the total costs of brand-name oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), the most widely used form of contraception, and its association with the pharmaceutical market concentration among the OCPs. Data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) 2011-2014, a nationally representative survey of healthcare utilization, were extracted on the utilization of generic and brand-name OCPs. A multiple logit regression analysis was conducted to assess the trend in utilization of brand-name OCPs over time. Total costs, including the costs to the payers and consumers, were synthesized. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), an index describing market concentration, was constructed, and a multiple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the association between the brand-name OCP prices and the market share of individual brand-name drugs. The odds of utilizing brand-name drugs decreased steadily in 2012, 2013, and 2014 compared to 2012 (AOR 0.87, 0.73, 0.55, respectively, p<0.05) controlling for patient mix. Despite significant decline in total utilization, there was a 90% increase in the price of brand-name OCPs, resulting an 18% increase in revenue from 2011 to 2014 for the industry. During this time, pharmaceutical market concentration for OCPs increased (HHI increased from 1105 in 2011 to 2415 in 2014). Each percentage point increase in the market share by a brand-name OCPs was associated with a $3.12 increase in its price. Market mechanisms matter. Practitioners and policy makers need to take market mechanisms into account in order to realize the benefits of generic substitutions.

Economic Evaluations of Thrombophilia Screening Prior to Prescribing Combined Oral Contraceptives: A Systematic and Critical Review.

BACKGROUND: Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) increase the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), particularly among women with inherited clotting disorders. The World Health Organization classifies combined hormonal contraception as an "unacceptable health risk" for women with thrombogenic mutations but advises against universal thrombophilia screening before prescribing COCs given the low prevalence of thrombophilia and high screening costs. OBJECTIVE: Through the lens of lifetime costs and benefits, this paper systematically and critically reviews all published economic evaluations of thrombophilia screening prior to prescribing COCs. METHODS: We searched relevant databases for economic evaluations of thrombophilia screening before prescribing COCs. After extracting the key study characteristics and economic variables, we evaluated each article using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) instruments. RESULTS: Seven economic evaluations of thrombophilia screening before prescribing COCs met our inclusion criteria. Only the two economic evaluations focusing exclusively on selective screening exceeded the 75-point threshold for high-quality economic studies based on the QHES instrument, whereas only one of these exceeded the 85% CHEERS threshold. Only three of the seven economic evaluations performed sensitivity analysis on key parameters. Most studies underestimated the benefits of thrombophilia screening by comparing one-time costs of genetic screening against benefits per person-year, thus implicitly assuming a 1-year duration of COC use, neglecting the long-term implications of VTE and/or neglecting the lifetime benefits of awareness of inherited thrombophilia. CONCLUSION: Our review highlights the lack of methodologically rigorous economic evaluations of universal thrombophilia screening before prescribing COCs.

Long-term medical management of endometriosis with dienogest and with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist and add-back hormone therapy.

Endometriosis can recur after either surgical or medical therapy. Long-term medical therapy is implemented to treat symptoms or prevent recurrence. Dienogest and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues with hormone add-back therapy seem to be equally effective for long-term treatment of pain symptoms associated with endometriosis. There is insufficient evidence to support the superiority of one therapy over the other. However, add-back hormone therapy (HT) is recommended for patients using GnRH agonists. The treatment selection depends on therapeutic effectiveness, tolerability, drug cost, the physician's experience, and expected patient compliance.

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.

Costes de la anticoncepción hormonal combinada en España: ¿hay algún método más coste-efectivo? / Cost-effectiveness of combined hormonal contraception in Spain: Which is the most cost-effective method?

Objetivo: Evaluar el coste-efectividad de diferentes métodos anticonceptivos hormonales combinados. Material y método: Estudio de farmacoeconomía utilizando un modelo de Markov sobre los costes de 3 métodos anticonceptivos hormonales combinados: un anticonceptivo oral financiado, un parche transdérmico y un anillo vaginal. Resultados: El coste total para el Sistema Nacional de Salud, teniendo en cuenta todas las mujeres en edad fértil que utilizan anticoncepción hormonal combinada, sería de 410.122.928 euros en el caso del anticonceptivo oral financiado, de 296.961.568 euros en el caso del parche y de 295.380.316 euros en el caso del anillo vaginal. Para las mujeres los costes serían de 106.164.890 euros, 521.386.383 y 534.474.699 euros respectivamente. Conclusión: Desde la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud el método de anticoncepción hormonal combinada más coste-efectivo es el anillo vaginal. Desde la perspectiva de las mujeres el uso del anillo vaginal les cuesta más dinero, pero se exponen menos al riesgo de un embarazo no deseado (AU)

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of different combined hormonal contraceptive (CHC) methods. Material and method: A pharmacoeconomic study was conducted using a Markov model of three CHC methods: a reimbursed oral contraceptive, a contraceptive patch, and a vaginal ring. Results: The total cost to the National Health Service would be Euros 410,122,928 if all women of fertile age who employed CHC used a financed oral contraceptive, Euros 296,961,568 if they used the transdermal patch, and Euros 295,380,316 if they used the vaginal ring. For women, these costs would be Euros 106,164,890, Euros 521,386,383, and Euros 534,474,699, respectively. Conclusion: From an National Health Service perspective, the most cost-effective CHC method is the vaginal ring. For women, the vaginal ring is most expensive method, but the excess price could be balanced by a greater protection against unwanted pregnancies (AU)

Potential public sector cost-savings from over-the-counter access to oral contraceptives.

OBJECTIVE: This study estimates how making oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) available without a prescription may affect contraceptive use, unintended pregnancies and associated contraceptive and pregnancy costs among low-income women. STUDY DESIGN: Based on published figures, we estimate two scenarios [low over-the-counter (OTC) use and high OTC use] of the proportion of low-income women likely to switch to an OTC pill and predict adoption of OCPs according to the out-of-pocket costs per pill pack. We then estimate cost-savings of each scenario by comparing the total public sector cost of providing OCPs OTC and medical care for unintended pregnancy. RESULTS: Twenty-one percent of low-income women at risk for unintended pregnancy are very likely to use OCPs if they were available without a prescription. Women's use of OTC OCPs varies widely by the out-of-pocket pill pack cost. In a scenario assuming no out-of-pocket costs for the over-the counter pill, an additional 11-21% of low-income women will use the pill, resulting in a 20-36% decrease in the number of women using no method or a method less effective than the pill, and a 7-25% decrease in the number of unintended pregnancies, depending on the level of use and any effect on contraceptive failure rates. CONCLUSIONS: If out-of-pocket costs for such pills are low, OTC access could have a significant effect on use of effective contraceptives and unintended pregnancy. Public health plans may reduce expenditures on pregnancy and contraceptive healthcare services by covering oral contraceptives as an OTC product. IMPLICATIONS: Interest in OTC access to oral contraceptives is high. Removing the prescription barrier, particularly if pill packs are available at low or zero out-of-pocket cost, could increase the use of effective methods of contraception and reduce unintended pregnancy and healthcare costs for contraceptive and pregnancy care.

The direct and indirect costs of uterine fibroid tumors: a systematic review of the literature between 2000 and 2013.

This systematic literature review was conducted to summarize the direct and indirect costs per patient that are associated with uterine fibroid tumors in international studies. A search with predefined search terms was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies that were published from January 2000 to November 2013. The review included primary studies that were in English and that reported either direct costs (drug costs, procedure costs, and medical service costs) or indirect costs (such as productivity loss) among patients with uterine fibroid tumors. A total of 26 studies that were identified and included in the data extraction included 19 studies in the United States, 2 studies in the Netherlands, 1 study each in Germany, China, Italy, and Canada, and 1 study reported data that were collected from 3 countries: Germany, France, and England. The studies differed substantially in perspectives that were adopted for analysis, research designs, data elements that were collected, setting, populations, and outcome measurements. Among 3 studies that reported total direct costs during the year after uterine fibroid tumor diagnosis, 2 studies reported an average of $9473 and $9319 per patient, respectively; 2 studies reported the excess costs over controls to be $6076 and $5427, respectively. The indirect costs per patient ranged from $2399-15,549, and the excess indirect cost per patient over control groups ranged from $323-4824 in the year after the diagnosis. The total costs, sum of direct and indirect costs, ranged from $11,717-25,023 per patient per year, after diagnosis or surgery among patients with uterine fibroid tumors. Compared with control subjects, the additional annual cost ranged from $2200-15,952 per patient. The results of this systematic literature review highlight the substantial direct and indirect costs that are associated with uterine fibroid tumors to health care payers and society. The large number and the variety of studies identified also emphasize the growing awareness of the significant economic impact of uterine fibroid tumors. Current gaps that were identified through this review warrant further investigation to elucidate fully the economic burden of uterine fibroid tumors, including, but not limited to, burden from the patient's perspective and the entirety of indirect costs.

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.

User characteristics and out-of-pocket expenditures for progestin-only versus combined oral contraceptives.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the proportion of oral contraceptive pill (OCP) users that use progestin-only pills (POPs), factors associated with POP use, and whether out-of-pocket expenditures and dispensing patterns are similar to combined oral contraceptives (COCs). STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort using 1996-2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys. RESULTS: Among all OCP users, 4% used POPs and changed little between 1996 and 2008. Women were more likely to use POPs if they received postpartum care (p<.001), had a diagnosis of hypertension (p<.001) or resided in the West (p<.01). POP users, compared to COC users, were more likely to pay $15 and more (p<.01) and less likely to obtain more than one pack per purchase (p<.001), controlling for age, race/ethnicity and insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: POP use is very low in the United States. POP users obtained fewer packs per purchase compared with COC users, suggesting that POP may be used as transitional OCPs, particularly during the postpartum period.

Estradiol valerate/dienogest: a novel combined oral contraceptive.

BACKGROUND: Estradiol valerate/dienogest (E2V/DNG) is a combined oral contraceptive (COC) with 2 new hormonal entities and a unique 4-phasic dosing regimen indicated for women to prevent pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, tolerability, and cost of E2V/DNG. METHODS: MEDLINE (1966-June 2011) and EMBASE (1966-June 2011) were searched for original research and review articles published in the English language using the terms Natazia or Qlaira or estradiol valerate and dienogest. The reference lists of identified articles were reviewed for additional pertinent publications. Abstracts from the 2005 to 2011 American Society of Reproductive Medicine and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists meetings were searched using the same terms. RESULTS: The search provided 56 articles that addressed the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, clinical efficacy, and tolerability of E2V/DNG in women of reproductive age. Articles reporting efficacy or tolerability in the setting of menopause were excluded. The initial efficacy of E2V/DNG on ovulation inhibition was investigated in 2 prospective, randomized, open-label, Phase II dose-finding studies. The dose that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration resulted in 3.13% of women ovulating in the second cycle of treatment (90% CI, 0.2%-6.05%). Rate of pregnancy prevention with this agent was reported with a Pearl Index ranging from 0.73 to 1.27 (unadjusted) to 0.34 to 0.72 (adjusted for method failure only). The mean duration of withdrawal bleeding was 4.3 days (range, 4.0-4.6 days) among 2266 women receiving 13 treatment cycles. Adverse events reported in >1% of patients included abdominal pain, acne, breast pain, dysmenorrhea, emotional lability, headache, nausea, and weight increase. CONCLUSIONS: Estradiol valerate/dienogest is a new contraceptive formulation. It offers efficacy, tolerability, and an acceptable safety profile with a potentially better bleeding pattern than levonorgestrel-containing COCs. This COC may be especially useful for older women of reproductive age who are adherent to therapy and looking for shorter and/or lighter menstrual cycles. Studies will need to be performed to determine whether clinically significant differences in outcomes exist among E2V/DNG and other available COCs.

Ovulation inhibition doses of progestins: a systematic review of the available literature and of marketed preparations worldwide.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this analysis was to provide a comprehensive review of ovulation inhibition data of progestins currently available worldwide. This analysis may serve as a reference tool for research on new progestin molecules. STUDY DESIGN: We used literature search engines to detect data of progestin monotherapies on ovulation inhibition in humans. Only treatments with stable dosing during a cycle were accepted. In a second step, we tried to estimate the 99% ovulation inhibiting doses and their fiducial confidence limits using the probit dose-response model. Finally, we analyzed the progestin doses of combined oral contraceptives currently on the market. RESULTS: We found original data on 29 marketed and nonmarketed progestins in a total of 60 publications, published between 1956 and May 2010. Details on methods used for determining ovulation, number of doses and daily dose of each tested progestin, number of subjects, cycles and ovulations are summarized in a table. We designed one example of a dose-response curve using the statistical model. For most progestins, literature data were insufficient for this purpose. A total of 13 progestins are components of oral contraceptives currently on the market worldwide, five of them in combination with 20 mcg ethinyl estradiol (EE). CONCLUSION: This review provides a comprehensive overview of all progestins ever tested for their ovulation inhibition potency and a summary of all preparations currently on the world market, including their regimens and their combinations with EE.

Economic evaluation of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for the treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost and effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) versus combined oral contraception (COC) and progestogens (PROG) in first-line treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB) in Spain. STUDY DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of LNG-IUS, COC and PROG was carried out using a Markov model based on clinical data from the literature and expert opinion. The population studied were women with a previous diagnosis of idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding. The analysis was performed from the National Health System perspective, discounting both costs and future effects at 3%. In addition, a sensitivity analysis (univariate and probabilistic) was conducted. RESULTS: The results show that the greater efficacy of LNG-IUS translates into a gain of 1.92 and 3.89 symptom-free months (SFM) after six months of treatment versus COC and PROG, respectively (which represents an increase of 33% and 60% of symptom-free time). Regarding costs, LNG-IUS produces savings of € 174.2-309.95 and € 230.54-577.61 versus COC and PROG, respectively, after 6 months-5 years. Apart from cost savings and gains in SFM, quality-adjusted life months (QALM) are also favourable to LNG-IUS in all scenarios, with a range of gains between 1 and 2 QALM compared to COC and PROG. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that first-line use of the LNG-IUS is the dominant therapeutic option (less costly and more effective) in comparison with first-line use of COC or PROG for the treatment of DUB in Spain. LNG-IUS as first line is also the option that provides greatest health-related quality of life to patients.

Self-injection of monthly combined hormonal contraceptive.

OBJECTIVES: The monthly injectable contraceptive is usually administered in the office. We aimed to compare home self-injection with office administration with respect to satisfaction, compliance, and time and money spent on contraceptive behavior. METHODS: We enrolled 16 subjects and taught them self-injection for a prospective cohort trial with crossover. Subjects performed three self-injections at home and then had three office injections by the nurse. RESULTS: Ten subjects completed the protocol. They reported similarly low pain and anxiety with nurse injections and self-injections. Women reported spending less money and similar time for home injections. Most subjects strongly preferred giving themselves injections at home to office injections and would recommend self-injection to other women. CONCLUSIONS: Self-injection of the monthly contraceptive at home is a preferable alternative to office administration for these subjects. This study demonstrates the feasibility of teaching women self-injection. Future studies should look at how best to teach women self-injection and to select women who will be successful with self-injection of contraceptives.

Cost-effectiveness and contraceptive effectiveness of the transdermal contraceptive patch.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine implications of increased perfect use on the cost-effectiveness of the contraceptive patch compared with combination oral contraceptives (COCs). STUDY DESIGN: This study compared the patch with low-estrogen-dose COCs. It assumes that the risks of developing a medical condition during use are the same for both the patch and COCs. Differences in net cost and pregnancies avoided during use were modeled. With the use of a pharmacoeconomic model, both methods were compared with a hypothetical reference case of contraception nonuse. The base-case model considered women, ages 15 to 50, in average health in a long-term, mutually monogamous, heterosexual relationship. RESULTS: The base-case analysis showed that use of the patch resulted in a savings of 249 US dollars and 0.03 pregnancies per woman over 2 years compared with COCs. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrated that patch use would be cost saving compared with COC use, resulting in a net avoidance of pregnancy for this population. The cost savings are attributed to reduced costs of pregnancy.

Out-of-pocket expenditures for oral contraceptives and number of packs per purchase.

OBJECTIVE: Two potential barriers to use of oral contraceptives (OCPs) are out-of-pocket expenditures and the inconvenience of monthly pharmacy visits. This study used nationally representative data to examine the out-of-pocket costs of OCPs and whether women obtain more than 1 pack per purchase. METHODS: We used data from the 1996 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Dependent variables were out-of-pocket expenditures per pack and the number of packs obtained per purchase. Chi2 tests were used to examine the bivariate relationships between the dependent variables and covariates. Regression analyses were used to examine the predictors of OCP expenditures and the number of packs obtained per purchase. RESULTS: Women paid an average of 14 dollars per pack of OCPs, and 73% obtained only 1 pack per purchase. On average, privately insured women paid 60% of the total expenditures for OCPs. Women who had no prescription drug coverage, who were uninsured, or who were privately insured but not in managed care plans had higher out-of-pocket expenditures. Women who were without prescription drug coverage or who were in managed care plans were more likely to obtain only 1 pack per purchase. CONCLUSION: Out-of-pocket costs and dispensing restrictions may be barriers to consistent use of OCPs. Women's health care providers should consider options to overcome these barriers, such as the use of mail order prescription services.

Economics of reducing menstruation with trimonthly-cycle oral contraceptive therapy: comparison with standard-cycle regimens.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether, and under what circumstances, trimonthly-cycle oral contraceptive pill (OCP) therapy is cost saving over standard-cycle OCP therapy for reducing the severity of menstrual-related symptoms. METHODS: We created three economic models, with each model representing a unique cost perspective (societal, private third party, and patient), to estimate the incremental annual costs associated with women taking trimonthly-cycle rather than standard-cycle OCP. Direct costs considered were costs for OCP prescriptions, female hygiene products, generic over-the-counter pain relievers and iron tablets, home pregnancy tests, and physician visits for menstrual-related concerns. Indirect costs considered were lost wages due to menstruation-related disability and opportunity costs of physician visits. We derived base-case and sensitivity range estimates from prior literature, public use data, expert opinion, and cross-sectional survey data that we collected from 59 adult women taking standard-cycle OCP visiting a large, community-based gynecology office. All costs were adjusted to 2002 US dollars. RESULTS: Under base-case assumptions that both regimens were equivalently priced (1.16 US dollars/pill) and trimonthly OCP reduces hygiene product use by 50%, annual societal costs per person were 460 US dollars for trimonthly OCP and 501 US dollars for standard OCP (incremental cost savings = 41 US dollars). Assuming no difference in monthly drug copayment costs between the two regimens (5.00 US dollars), annual private third-party costs were nearly identical at 365 US dollars per regimen. Annual patient costs were 95 US dollars for trimonthly OCP and 136 US dollars for standard OCP. Trimonthly OCP remained cost saving to society as long its price remained below a 9% premium to standard OCP prices. The degree to which trimonthly OCP reduces hygiene product use also significantly influenced the cost difference between the two regimens. CONCLUSION: Compared with standard-cycle OCP, trimonthly-cycle OCP appears to be associated with significant societal and patient cost savings. These savings are highly conditional upon trimonthly OCP being priced similarly to standard OCP.