Cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States

被引:237
作者
Trussell, James [1 ,2 ]
Lalla, Anjana M. [3 ]
Doan, Quan V. [3 ]
Reyes, Eileen [3 ]
Pinto, Lionel [3 ]
Gricar, Joseph [4 ]
机构
[1] Princeton Univ, Off Populat Res, Princeton, NJ 08540 USA
[2] Univ Hull, Hull York Med Sch, Kingston Upon Hull HU6 7RX, N Humberside, England
[3] Cerner LifeSci, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 USA
[4] Independent Healthcare Consultant, New York, NY 10002 USA
关键词
Contraception; Contraceptive devices; Cost effectiveness; Economic modeling; LEVONORGESTREL INTRAUTERINE SYSTEM; URINARY-TRACT INFECTION; UNINTENDED PREGNANCY; TUBAL-STERILIZATION; ORAL-CONTRACEPTIVES; ECTOPIC PREGNANCY; ECONOMIC-ANALYSIS; NATIONAL-SURVEY; FAMILY GROWTH; CYCLE CONTROL;
D O I
10.1016/j.contraception.2008.08.003
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Background: The study was conducted to estimate the relative c perspective cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States from a payer's perspective. Methods: A Markov model was constructed to simulate costs for 16 contraceptive methods and no method over a 5-year period. Failure rates, adverse event rates and resource utilization were derived from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed on costs and failure rates. Results: Any contraceptive method is superior to "no method". The three least expensive methods were the copper-T intrauterine device (IUD) (USS647). vasectomy (USS713) and levonorgesurel (LNG)-20 intrauterine system (IUS) (USS930). Results were sensitive to the cost of contraceptive methods, the cost of an unintended pregnancy and plan disenrollment rates. Conclusion: The copper-T IUD, vasectomy and the LNG-20 IUS are the most cost-effective contraceptive methods available in the United States. Differences in method costs, the cost of in unintended pregnancy and time horizon are influential factors that determine the overall value of a contraceptive method. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:5 / 14
页数:10
相关论文
共 44 条
  • [1] *AB SURV US, 2003, MMWR MORB MORTAL WKL, V55
  • [2] American Medical Association, 2007, CURR PROC TERM CPT
  • [3] Evaluation of contraceptive efficacy and cycle control of a transdermal contraceptive patch vs an oral contraceptive - A randomized controlled trial
    Audet, MC
    Moreau, M
    Koltun, WD
    Waldbaum, AS
    Shangold, G
    Fisher, AC
    Creasy, GW
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2001, 285 (18): : 2347 - 2354
  • [4] Pregnancy during the use of levonorgestrel intrauterine system
    Backman, T
    Rauramo, I
    Huhtala, S
    Koskenvuo, M
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2004, 190 (01) : 50 - 54
  • [5] Length of use and symptoms associated with premature removal of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system: a nation-wide study of 17,360 users
    Backman, T
    Huhtala, S
    Blom, T
    Luoto, R
    Rauramo, I
    Koskenvuo, M
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2000, 107 (03): : 335 - 339
  • [6] Acceptability of the long-term contraceptive levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena®):: a 3-year follow-up study
    Baldaszti, E
    Wimmer-Puchinger, B
    Löschke, K
    [J]. CONTRACEPTION, 2003, 67 (02) : 87 - 91
  • [7] Bleeding patterns of women using extended regimens of the contraceptive vaginal ring
    Barreiros, Fernando Augusto
    Guazzelli, Cnistina Aparecida Falbo
    de Araujo, Fabio Fernando
    Barbosa, Ricardo
    [J]. CONTRACEPTION, 2007, 75 (03) : 204 - 208
  • [8] Chandra Anjani, 2005, Vital Health Stat 23, P1
  • [9] Economic analysis of contraceptives for women
    Chiou, CF
    Trussell, J
    Reyes, E
    Knight, K
    Wallace, J
    Udani, J
    Oda, K
    Borenstein, J
    [J]. CONTRACEPTION, 2003, 68 (01) : 3 - 10
  • [10] RETRACTED: The pharmacodynamics and efficacy of Implanon® - An overview of the data (Retracted Article)
    Croxatto, HB
    Mäkäräinen, L
    [J]. CONTRACEPTION, 1998, 58 (06) : 91S - 97S