Reassessment of a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Etonogestrel Implant Compared to Other Contraceptive Methods Based on Real Life Data in France

Author(s)

Dumon L1, Gouzy C1, Robert J2, Fabron C3
1ORGANON, Paris, France, 2Cemka, Bourg-La-Reine, France, 3Cemka, BOURG-LA-REINE, France

Presentation Documents

OBJECTIVES: To reassess the cost-effectiveness of etonogestrel implant compared to other contraceptive methods delivered in France.

METHODS: The 6-year cost-effectiveness societal perspective model from 2020 has been updated to assess the cost and health outcomes of the implant versus other contraceptive methods (combined oral contraceptive pill (COC), progestogen-only pill, copper and hormonal intrauterine device (IUD)) among sexually active, not-pregnancy-seeking French females of reproductive age. Economic parameters such as treatment costs or gynecological follow-up costs were updated with the most recent databases. Other parameters such as contraception efficacy, switch rates and outcomes following contraceptive failure, coming from French medical practice data (FACET study), have not been modified.

RESULTS: The implant is still the most effective contraceptive method with 1.7‰ unplanned pregnancy (UP) avoided per person-year (PPY) over 5 years hormonal IUD (35.3‰ UP avoided PPY over second generation (2G) COC). At its current price, incremental costs of the implant range from €-28.4 (savings) over third or fourth generation (3/4G) COC to €+45.4 (extra-costs) over 2G COC respectively. The implant remains on the efficiency frontier with 2G COC and copper IUD and dominates hormonal IUDs. The ICER of the implant versus copper IUD is €2,245 per pregnancy avoided (+1.1% compared to the previous analysis). Sensitivity analyses, including variation of efficacy data or contraceptive persistence rate had a moderate impact on ICER varying from -44.6% to +34.4% of the base case value. Two new scenarios confirmed the efficiency of the implant: the inclusion of midwives in gynecological follow-up and the extension of the efficacy duration of the implant from 3 to 5 years, with a decrease in the ICER of 13% and 42% respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: The efficiency of the implant compared to long-term and short-term reversible contraceptive methods is not challenged and is even destined to continue in case its duration is increased.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2022-11, ISPOR Europe 2022, Vienna, Austria

Value in Health, Volume 25, Issue 12S (December 2022)

Code

EE154

Topic

Economic Evaluation, Study Approaches

Topic Subcategory

Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis

Disease

No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×