The levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the costs and non-inferiority of a strategy starting with the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) compared with endometrial ablation (EA) in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective alongside a multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial. SETTING: General practices and gynaecology departments in the Netherlands. POPULATION: In all, 270 women with HMB, aged ≥34 years old, without intracavitary pathology or wish for a future child. METHODS: Randomisation to a strategy starting with the LNG-IUS (n = 132) or EA (n = 138). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Direct medical costs and (in)direct non-medical costs were calculated. The primary outcome was menstrual blood loss after 24 months, measured with the mean Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart (PBAC)-score (non-inferiority margin 25 points). A secondary outcome was successful blood loss reduction (PBAC-score ≤75 points). RESULTS: Total costs per patient were €2,285 in the LNG-IUS strategy and €3,465 in the EA strategy (difference: €1,180). At 24 months, mean PBAC-scores were 64.8 in the LNG-IUS group (n = 115) and 14.2 in the EA group (n = 132); difference 50.5 points (95% CI 4.3-96.7). In the LNG-IUS group, 87% of women had a PBAC-score ≤75 points versus 94% in the EA group (relative risk [RR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.85-1.01). The ICER was €23 (95% CI €5-111) per PBAC-point. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy starting with the LNG-IUS was cheaper than starting with EA, but non-inferiority could not be demonstrated. The LNG-IUS is reversible and less invasive and can be a cost-effective treatment option, depending on the success rate women are willing to accept. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding starting with LNG-IUS is cheaper but slightly less effective than endometrial ablation.

The levonorgestrel intrauterine system for prevention of endometrial cancer in women with obesity: A cost-effectiveness study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) as an endometrial cancer prevention strategy in women with obesity. METHODS: A Markov decision-analytic model was used to compare 5 strategies in women with a body mass index of 30 or greater: 1) Usual care 2) LNG-IUS for 5 years 3) LNG-IUS for 7 years 4) LNG-IUS for 5 years, replaced once for a total of 10 years 5) LNG-IUS for 7 years, replaced once for a total of 14 years. Obesity was presumed to be associated with a 3-fold relative risk of endometrial cancer incidence and a 2.65-fold disease-specific mortality. The LNG-IUS was assumed to confer a 50% reduction in cancer incidence over the period of the LNG-IUS insertion. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, calculated in 2019 Canadian dollars (CAD) per year of life saved. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The LNG-IUS strategy was considered cost-effective if the cost of the intervention is less than $66,400 CAD ($50,000 US dollars) per year of life saved. The strategy becomes cost-effective if the LNG-IUS is inserted at age 57 (strategy #2), at age 52 for strategy #3, at age 51 for strategy #4 and at age 45 for strategy #5, when compared to usual care. The results are stable to variations in cost but sensitive to the estimated risk reduction of the LNG-IUS and the impact of obesity on endometrial cancer incidence and disease-specific mortality. CONCLUSION: The LNG-IUS is a cost-effective method of endometrial cancer prevention in women with obesity.

Access to intrauterine contraceptives in the Southern District Health Board catchment.

AIM: Recent changes in funding have reduced the cost of the highly effective levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LIUS) contraceptives (Mirena and Jaydess). This paper explores equity of access to intrauterine contraceptives for Maori and the general population by locating and surveying all potential providers within the Southern District Health Board catchment area. METHODS: Using online survey, e-mail or phone, we asked if intrauterine contraceptive insertion was provided, what device was provided, cost and number of appointments required. ArcGIS 10.6.1 software was used to estimate population distribution, and to create service areas showing distance to nearest current providers for Maori and the general population. RESULTS: All 88 potential providers agreed to participate; two thirds (66.3%) provided some intrauterine contraceptive insertion. Approximately three quarters of the Maori and general population live within 5km of a primary provider. Costs ranged from $0 to $270, in addition to the cost of the required consultations. Number of consultations required varied from one to three. CONCLUSIONS: Cost and travel time likely remain barriers to accessing intrauterine contraceptives for a significant population within this catchment. Increasing the capacity for all primary providers to offer insertion, funding the insertion process, minimising the number of appointments required and providing mobile services would improve access.

Free-of-charge long-acting reversible contraception: two-year discontinuation, its risk factors, and reasons.

BACKGROUND: Since 2013, the residents of the city of Vantaa, Finland, have been offered their first long-acting reversible contraceptive method (levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, implant, and copper intrauterine device) free of charge. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to assess the 2-year cumulative discontinuation rates of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods when provided free of charge for first-time users in a real-world setting. Additional aims were to describe factors associated with discontinuation and to evaluate the reasons for discontinuation. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective register-based cohort study of 2026 nonsterilized women aged 15 to 44 years, who initiated a free-of-charge long-acting contraceptive method in 2013-2014 in the city of Vantaa. Removals within 2 years after method initiation and reasons for discontinuation were obtained from electronic health records and from national registers. We calculated the 2-year cumulative incidence rates of discontinuation with 95% confidence intervals for each method. Furthermore, we assessed crude and adjusted incidence rate ratios of discontinuation with 95% confidence interval by Poisson regression models comparing implants and copper intrauterine device with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems. RESULTS: During the 2 -year follow-up, 514 women discontinued, yielding a cumulative discontinuation rate of 28.3 per 100 women-years (95% confidence interval, 26.2-30.4). Among the 1199 women who initiated the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, the cumulative discontinuation rate was 24.2 per 100 women-years (95% confidence interval, 21.7-26.9); among the 642 implant users, 33.3 per 100 women-years (95% confidence interval, 29.5-37.4); and among the 185 copper intrauterine device users, 37.8 per 100 women-years (95% confidence interval, 31.0-45.7). Compared with women aged 30 to 44 years, women aged 15 to 19 years (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.14) and 20 to 29 years (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.63) were more likely to discontinue. We observed a higher discontinuation rate in women who had given birth within the previous year (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.65), spoke a native language other than Finnish or Swedish (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.63), and had a history of a sexually transmitted infection (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.46). No association was found in marital status, overall parity, history of induced abortion, socioeconomic status, education level, or smoking status. The most common reason for discontinuation was bleeding disturbances, reported by 21% of women who discontinued the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, by 71% who discontinued the implant, and by 41% who discontinued the copper intrauterine device. One in 4 women who discontinued the copper intrauterine device reported heavy menstrual bleeding, whereas only 1% who discontinued the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and none who discontinued implants reported this reason. Abdominal pain was the reported reason for discontinuation in 20% of both intrauterine device users and in only 2% who discontinued implants. CONCLUSION: At 2 years, the use of implants and copper intrauterine devices was more likely to be discontinued than that of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Women younger than 30 years and those who gave birth in the preceding year, spoke a native language other than Finnish or Swedish, or had a history of sexually transmitted infections were more likely to discontinue. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system was least likely to be removed owing to bleeding disturbances.

Changes in uptake and cost of long-acting reversible contraceptive devices following the introduction of a new low-cost levonorgestrel IUD in Utah's Title X clinics: a retrospective review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess changes in long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) method uptake at Utah's Title X clinics before and after introduction of a new, low-cost levonorgestrel (LNG) 52mg IUD (Liletta®). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective medical record review of LARC visits occurring at seven Title-X family planning clinics in Utah before the introduction of the low-cost LNG IUD (preintroduction period: 01/01/2014-04/30/2015) and after (postintroduction period: 05/01/2015-03/31/2016). We ran segmented, interrupted time series ordinary least squares regression models using Newey-West standard errors to assess both the change in numbers of women initiating any LARC method and the average payment amount per LARC method. We evaluated both the low-cost LNG IUD and all LARC methods. RESULTS: At the outset of preintroduction period, there were 29.2 [95% confidence interval (CI): 20.1-38.4] monthly LNG IUD insertions. Immediately postintroduction, there was a significant level of increase of 14.4 LNG IUD insertions the first month (95% CI: 2.0-26.8) followed by a significant trend increase each month of 2.4 additional LNG IUD insertions (95% CI: 0.32-4.47). Postintroduction, there was a significant level of remitted-payment decrease from all sources of -$240.43 per LNG IUD (95% CI: -311.02 to 168.87) followed by a significant monthly trend decrease of -$23.01 per LNG IUD (95% CI: -32.02 to -13.98). There were minimal changes in uptake and payment of other LARC methods following the introduction of the low-cost LNG IUD. CONCLUSIONS: Following introduction of a low-cost LNG IUD at Title X clinics, LNG IUD initiation increased and average payment for the method decreased. IMPLICATIONS: Reducing the cost of LARC methods, both to clinics and to patients, is essential to expanding access. Additional efforts to develop and provide access to low-cost copper IUDs and subdermal implants as well as novel LARC methods should be continued.

Who can afford a Mirena® for contraception?

INTRODUCTION The Mirena®, a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS), is an effective form of contraception that lasts for 5 years. In New Zealand, it is not subsidised for contraception and the device costs NZ$340 at Family Planning clinics. AIM To determine if there is a difference in the socioeconomic status and ethnicity of women who chose an LNG-IUS for contraception compared with women opting for a subsidised long-acting contraceptive (copper intrauterine device (IUD) or Jadelle® implant) or who qualified for a Special Authority Mirena® (funded by Pharmac, as treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding). METHODS All the Mirena®, Jaydess®, IUD and Jadelle® insertions that occurred at Family Planning clinics in 2015 in the Wellington region were identified. The deprivation quintile of current address and ethnicity were determined. RESULTS In the study period, 1410 devices were inserted. Of the self-funded LNG-IUSs inserted, 5% were for women with quintile 5 addresses (areas with the most deprived New Zealand Deprivation (NZDep) scores) and 28% for quintile 1 areas (least deprived NZDep scores). Of the Special Authority Mirenas® inserted, 24% were for women residing in quintile 5 areas and 19%, quintile 1 areas. Self-funded LNG-IUS were chosen by 2.5% of Maori women choosing contraception at study Family Planning clinics and no Pacific Peoples, whereas 21% of New Zealand European women chose LNG-IUS. Special Authority Mirenas® were chosen by 9.5% Maori and 9.6% Pacific Peoples compared to 4% New Zealand Europeans. DISCUSSION Maori, Pacific Peoples and women residing in quintile 5 areas chose self-funded LNG-IUSs less often than Special Authority Mirenas®. This was not the case for the other groups, who showed higher use of self-funded LNG-IUSs than Special Authority Mirenas®.

Cost-effectiveness of treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding affects up to one third of women in the United States, resulting in a reduced quality of life and significant cost to the health care system. Multiple treatment options exist, offering different potential for symptom control at highly variable initial costs, but the relative value of these treatment options is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of 4 treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding: hysterectomy, resectoscopic endometrial ablation, nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation, and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. STUDY DESIGN: We formulated a decision tree evaluating private payer costs and quality-adjusted life years over a 5 year time horizon for premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding and no suspected malignancy. For each treatment option, we used probabilities derived from literature review to estimate frequencies of minor complications, major complications, and treatment failure resulting in the need for additional treatments. Treatments were compared in terms of total average costs, quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to understand the range of possible outcomes if model inputs were varied. RESULTS: The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system had superior quality-of-life outcomes to hysterectomy with lower costs. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system was cost-effective compared with hysterectomy in the majority of scenarios (90%). Both resectoscopic and nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation were associated with reduced costs compared with hysterectomy but resulted in a lower average quality of life. According to standard willingness-to-pay thresholds, resectoscopic endometrial ablation was considered cost effective compared with hysterectomy in 44% of scenarios, and nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation was considered cost effective compared with hysterectomy in 53% of scenarios. CONCLUSION: Comparing all trade-offs associated with 4 possible treatments of heavy menstrual bleeding, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system was superior to both hysterectomy and endometrial ablation in terms of cost and quality of life. Hysterectomy is associated with a superior quality of life and fewer complications than either type of ablation but at a higher cost. For women who are unwilling or unable to choose the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system as a first-course treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding, consideration of cost, procedure-specific complications, and patient preferences can guide the decision between hysterectomy and ablation.

Evaluation of quality of life and cost-effectiveness of definitive surgery and the levonorgestrel intrauterine system as treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding.

BACKGROUND/AIM: This study aimed to compare the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) with abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) as first-line treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight patients aged 20-55 years who complained of regular heavy menstrual bleeding were enrolled in the study. The TAH group included 29 patients, the LNG-IUS group included 34, and the TLH group included 35. These groups were compared in terms of quality of life and the cost-effectiveness of the selected methods. Quality of life was assessed using the 36-Item Short Form (SF-36), and cost-effectiveness was assessed according to the current cost of each approach. RESULTS: The quality of life parameters, with the exception of mental health, improved significantly in the LNG-IUS, TAH, and TLH groups. The mean costs of the LNG-IUS, TAH, and TLH procedures were $99.15 ± 4.90, $538.82 ± 193.00 and $1617.05 ± 258.44, respectively (P < 0.05). Overall, LNG-IUS was the most cost-effective treatment option. CONCLUSION: The outcome measures of the SF-36 revealed that after 6 months, these treatments were equal in terms of quality of life, except for mental health. LNG-IUS was the most cost-effective approach.

Contraception Insurance Coverage and Receipt of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception or Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate on the Day of Abortion.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether contraceptive insurance coverage for women who present for an abortion is associated with obtaining long-acting reversible contraception or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) on the day the abortion is completed. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of women presenting for medical or surgical abortion at a single health center in North Carolina. Eligible women were 18 years or older and fluent in English or Spanish. Data were from participant questionnaires, medical charts, and financial records. Our main exposure was whether the woman had insurance coverage for contraception at clinic intake. Our primary outcome was receiving DMPA, an intrauterine device, or a contraceptive subdermal implant on the same day of their surgical abortion or at the visit that determined their medication abortion was complete. We used univariable, bivariable, and multivariable analysis to report our findings. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-five women enrolled in our cohort between September 2015 and April 2016. One hundred twenty-eight (22%) had insurance coverage and 447 (78%) did not. In the group with insurance coverage for contraception, 38% (49/128) received a long-acting reversible contraception method or DMPA compared with 7% (33/447) in the group without insurance coverage for contraception. After adjusting for confounding, women with contraceptive coverage were more than five times as likely to receive immediate postabortion contraception with one of these methods compared with women without coverage (relative risk 5.6, 95% confidence interval 3.8-8.3). CONCLUSION: Women with contraceptive insurance coverage on the day of their abortion were more likely to leave the abortion clinic with an intrauterine device or implant in place or receive DMPA injection compared with women without coverage.

Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device as an Endometrial Cancer Prevention Strategy in Obese Women: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device (IUD) as an endometrial cancer prevention strategy in obese women. METHODS: A modified Markov model was used to compare IUD placement at age 50 with usual care among women with a body mass index (BMI, kg/m) 40 or greater or BMI 30 or greater. The effects of obesity on incidence and survival were incorporated. The IUD was assumed to confer a 50% reduction in cancer incidence over 5 years. Costs of IUD and cancer care were included. Clinical outcomes were cancer diagnosis and deaths from cancer. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated in 2015 U.S. dollars per year of life saved. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo probabilistic analyses were performed. RESULTS: For a 50 year old with BMI 40 or greater, the IUD strategy is costlier and more effective than usual care with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $74,707 per year of life saved. If the protective effect of the levonorgestrel IUD is assumed to be 10 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio decreases to $37,858 per year of life saved. In sensitivity analysis, a levonorgestrel IUD that reduces cancer incidence by at least 68% in women with BMIs of 40 or greater or costs less than $500 is potentially cost-effective. For BMI 30 or greater, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of IUD strategy is $137,223 per year of life saved compared with usual care. In Monte Carlo analysis, IUD placement for BMI 40 or greater is cost-effective in 50% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per year of life saved. CONCLUSION: The levonorgestrel IUD is a potentially cost-effective strategy for prevention of deaths from endometrial cancer in obese women.

Changes in out-of-pocket costs for hormonal IUDs after implementation of the Affordable Care Act: an analysis of insurance benefit inquiries.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires that privately insured women can obtain contraceptive services and supplies without cost sharing. This may substantially affect women who prefer an intrauterine device (IUD), a long-acting reversible contraceptive, because of high upfront costs that they would otherwise face. However, imperfect enforcement of and exceptions to this provision could limit its effect. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed administrative data for 417,221 women whose physicians queried their insurance plans from January 2012 to March 2014 to determine whether each woman had insurance coverage for a hormonal IUD and the extent of that coverage. RESULTS: In January 2012, 58% of women would have incurred out-of-pocket costs for an IUD, compared to only 13% of women in March 2014. Differentials by age and region virtually dissolved over the period studied, which suggests that the ACA reduced inequality among insured women. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the cost of hormonal IUDs fell to US$0 for most insured women following the implementation of the ACA. IMPLICATIONS: Financial barriers to one of the most effective methods of contraception fell substantially following the ACA. If more women interested in this method can access it, this may contribute to a decline in unintended pregnancies in the United States.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a low-dose contraceptive levonorgestrel intrauterine system in Sweden.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a novel intrauterine system, levonorgestrel intrauterine system 13.5 mg vs. oral contraception, in women at risk of unintended pregnancy. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness model using efficacy and discontinuation data from published articles. SETTING: Societal perspective including direct and indirect costs. POPULATION: Women at risk of unintended pregnancy using reversible contraception. METHODS: An economic analysis was conducted by modeling the different health states of women using contraception over a 3-year period. Typical use efficacy rates from published articles were used to determine unintended pregnancy events. Discontinuation rates were used to account for method switching. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of the incremental cost per unintended pregnancy avoided. In addition, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year was calculated. RESULTS: Levonorgestrel intrauterine system 13.5 mg generated costs savings of € 311,000 in a cohort of 1000 women aged 15-44 years. In addition, there were fewer unintended pregnancies (55 vs. 294) compared with women using oral contraception. CONCLUSION: Levonorgestrel intrauterine system 13.5 mg is a cost-effective method when compared with oral contraception. A shift in contraceptive use from oral contraception to long-acting reversible contraception methods could result in fewer unintended pregnancies, quality-adjusted life-year gains, as well as cost savings.

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.

Increasing LARC utilization: any woman, any place, any time.

Intrauterine contraceptive devices and the progestin implant are the most effective long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) methods available for preventing unintended pregnancy. LARC devices are safe, non-user-dependent methods that have the highest rates of continuation and satisfaction of all reversible contraceptives. Use of these contraceptives remains low in the United States due to several barriers including: misperceptions among both providers and patients; cost barriers; and patient access to the devices. Increasing the opportunities for women to access LARC methods in the primary care, postabortion, and postpartum setting can be achieved by addressing the system, provider, and patient barriers that exist.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system vs. usual medical treatment for menorrhagia: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To undertake an economic evaluation alongside the largest randomised controlled trial comparing Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device ('LNG-IUS') and usual medical treatment for women with menorrhagia in primary care; and compare the cost-effectiveness findings using two alternative measures of quality of life. METHODS: 571 women with menorrhagia from 63 UK centres were randomised between February 2005 and July 2009. Women were randomised to having a LNG-IUS fitted, or usual medical treatment, after discussing with their general practitioner their contraceptive needs or desire to avoid hormonal treatment. The treatment was specified prior to randomisation. For the economic evaluation we developed a state transition (Markov) model with a 24 month follow-up. The model structure was informed by the trial women's pathway and clinical experts. The economic evaluation adopted a UK National Health Service perspective and was based on an outcome of incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) estimated using both EQ-5D and SF-6D. RESULTS: Using EQ-5D, LNG-IUS was the most cost-effective treatment for menorrhagia. LNG-IUS costs £100 more than usual medical treatment but generated 0.07 more QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for LNG-IUS compared to usual medical treatment was £1600 per additional QALY. Using SF-6D, usual medical treatment was the most cost-effective treatment. Usual medical treatment was both less costly (£100) and generated 0.002 more QALYs. CONCLUSION: Impact on quality of life is the primary indicator of treatment success in menorrhagia. However, the most cost-effective treatment differs depending on the quality of life measure used to estimate the QALY. Under UK guidelines LNG-IUS would be the recommended treatment for menorrhagia. This study demonstrates that the appropriate valuation of outcomes in menorrhagia is crucial.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) 13.5 mg in contraception.

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.

Preventing repeat pregnancy in adolescents: is immediate postpartum insertion of the contraceptive implant cost effective?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical state-funded program offering immediate postpartum implant (IPI) insertion for adolescent mothers. STUDY DESIGN: Participants in an adolescent prenatal-postnatal program were enrolled in a prospective observational study of IPI insertion (IPI group, n = 171) vs standard contraceptive initiation (comparison group, n = 225). Implant discontinuation, repeat pregnancies and pregnancy outcomes were determined. We compared the anticipated public expenditures for IPI recipients and comparisons at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months postpartum using the actual outcomes of this cohort and Colorado Medicaid reimbursement estimates. Costs were normalized to 1000 adolescents in each arm and included 1 year of well-baby care for delivered pregnancies. RESULTS: At 6 months, the expenditures of the IPI group exceed the comparison group by $73,000. However, at 12, 24, and 36 months, publicly funded IPIs would result in a savings of more than $550,000, $2.5 million, and $4.5 million, respectively. For every dollar spent on the IPI program, $0.79, $3.54, and $6.50 would be saved at 12, 24, and 36 months. Expenditures between the IPI and comparison groups would be equal if the comparison group pregnancy rate was 13.8%, 18.6%, and 30.5% at 12, 24, and 36 months. Actual rates were 20.1%, 46.5%, and 83.7%. CONCLUSION: Offering IPIs to adolescent mothers is cost effective. Payors that do not currently cover IPI should integrate these data into policy considerations.

The cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for the treatment of idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Heavy menstrual bleeding negatively impacts the health and quality of life of about 18 million women in the United States. Although some studies have established the clinical effectiveness of heavy menstrual bleeding treatments, few have evaluated their cost-effectiveness. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) compared with other therapies for idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding. METHODS: We developed a model comparing the clinical and economic outcomes (from a US payer perspective) of three broad initial treatment strategies over 5 years: LNG-IUS, oral agents, or surgery. Up to three nonsurgical treatment lines, followed by up to two surgical lines, were allowed; unintended pregnancy was possible, and women could discontinue any time during nonsurgical treatments. Menstrual blood loss of 80 ml or more per cycle determined treatment failure. RESULTS: Initiating treatment with LNG-IUS resulted in the fewest hysterectomies (6 per 1000 women), the most quality-adjusted life-years (3.78), and the lowest costs ($1137) among all the nonsurgical strategies. Initiating treatment with LNG-IUS was also less costly than surgery, resulted in fewer hysterectomies (vs. 9 per 1000 for ablation) but was associated with fewer quality-adjusted life-years gained per patient (vs. 3.80 and 3.88 for ablation and hysterectomy, respectively). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS: LNG-IUS resulted in the lowest treatment costs and the fewest number of hysterectomies performed over 5 years compared with all other initial strategies and resulted in the most quality-adjusted life-years gained among nonsurgical options. Initial treatment with LNG-IUS is the least costly and most effective option for women desiring to preserve their fertility.