Ulipristal acetate compared to levonorgestrel emergency contraception among current oral contraceptive users

a cost-effectiveness analysis

Kimberley A. Bullard, Alison Edelman, Shannon M. Williams, Maria Rodriguez

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of ulipristal acetate (UPA) and levonorgestrel (LNG) emergency contraception (EC) on pregnancy prevention among combined oral contraceptive (COC) pill users with an extended pill-free interval. We accounted for the potential interaction of COCs and obesity on EC efficacy. Methods: We built a decision-analytic model using TreeAge software to evaluate the optimal oral EC strategy in a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 twenty-five-year-old women midcycle with a prolonged “missed” pill episode (8–14 days). We used a 5-year time horizon and 3% discount rate. From a healthcare perspective, we obtained probabilities, utilities and costs inflated to 2018 dollars from the literature. We set the threshold for cost-effectiveness at a standard $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. We included the following clinical outcomes: number of protected cycles, unintended pregnancies, abortions, deliveries and costs. Results: We found that UPA was the optimal method of oral EC, as it resulted in 720 fewer unintended pregnancies, 736 fewer abortions and 80 fewer deliveries at a total cost savings of $50,323 and 79 additional adjusted life-years. UPA continued to be the optimal strategy even in the case of obesity or COCs impacting UPA efficacy, in which a COC interaction would have to change efficacy of UPA by 160% before LNG was the dominant strategy. Conclusion: Our models found that UPA was the dominant choice of oral EC among COC users with a prolonged “missed” pill episode, regardless of body mass index or an adverse interaction of COCs on UPA. Implications: Ulipristal acetate is the dominant choice of oral emergency contraception among combined oral contraceptive users.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalContraception
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Postcoital Contraception
Levonorgestrel
Oral Contraceptives
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Contraceptives, Oral, Combined
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Pregnancy
Obesity
Costs and Cost Analysis
ulipristal acetate
Cost Savings
Body Mass Index
Software
Delivery of Health Care

Keywords

  • Contraception
  • Emergency contraception
  • Family planning
  • Levonorgestrel
  • Missed pills
  • Ulipristal acetate

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

@article{93772582ea604bb7bf1bb3b181e29c66,
title = "Ulipristal acetate compared to levonorgestrel emergency contraception among current oral contraceptive users: a cost-effectiveness analysis",
abstract = "Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of ulipristal acetate (UPA) and levonorgestrel (LNG) emergency contraception (EC) on pregnancy prevention among combined oral contraceptive (COC) pill users with an extended pill-free interval. We accounted for the potential interaction of COCs and obesity on EC efficacy. Methods: We built a decision-analytic model using TreeAge software to evaluate the optimal oral EC strategy in a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 twenty-five-year-old women midcycle with a prolonged “missed” pill episode (8–14 days). We used a 5-year time horizon and 3{\%} discount rate. From a healthcare perspective, we obtained probabilities, utilities and costs inflated to 2018 dollars from the literature. We set the threshold for cost-effectiveness at a standard $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. We included the following clinical outcomes: number of protected cycles, unintended pregnancies, abortions, deliveries and costs. Results: We found that UPA was the optimal method of oral EC, as it resulted in 720 fewer unintended pregnancies, 736 fewer abortions and 80 fewer deliveries at a total cost savings of $50,323 and 79 additional adjusted life-years. UPA continued to be the optimal strategy even in the case of obesity or COCs impacting UPA efficacy, in which a COC interaction would have to change efficacy of UPA by 160{\%} before LNG was the dominant strategy. Conclusion: Our models found that UPA was the dominant choice of oral EC among COC users with a prolonged “missed” pill episode, regardless of body mass index or an adverse interaction of COCs on UPA. Implications: Ulipristal acetate is the dominant choice of oral emergency contraception among combined oral contraceptive users.",
keywords = "Contraception, Emergency contraception, Family planning, Levonorgestrel, Missed pills, Ulipristal acetate",
author = "Bullard, {Kimberley A.} and Alison Edelman and Williams, {Shannon M.} and Maria Rodriguez",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.contraception.2019.05.004",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Contraception",
issn = "0010-7824",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ulipristal acetate compared to levonorgestrel emergency contraception among current oral contraceptive users

T2 - a cost-effectiveness analysis

AU - Bullard, Kimberley A.

AU - Edelman, Alison

AU - Williams, Shannon M.

AU - Rodriguez, Maria

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of ulipristal acetate (UPA) and levonorgestrel (LNG) emergency contraception (EC) on pregnancy prevention among combined oral contraceptive (COC) pill users with an extended pill-free interval. We accounted for the potential interaction of COCs and obesity on EC efficacy. Methods: We built a decision-analytic model using TreeAge software to evaluate the optimal oral EC strategy in a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 twenty-five-year-old women midcycle with a prolonged “missed” pill episode (8–14 days). We used a 5-year time horizon and 3% discount rate. From a healthcare perspective, we obtained probabilities, utilities and costs inflated to 2018 dollars from the literature. We set the threshold for cost-effectiveness at a standard $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. We included the following clinical outcomes: number of protected cycles, unintended pregnancies, abortions, deliveries and costs. Results: We found that UPA was the optimal method of oral EC, as it resulted in 720 fewer unintended pregnancies, 736 fewer abortions and 80 fewer deliveries at a total cost savings of $50,323 and 79 additional adjusted life-years. UPA continued to be the optimal strategy even in the case of obesity or COCs impacting UPA efficacy, in which a COC interaction would have to change efficacy of UPA by 160% before LNG was the dominant strategy. Conclusion: Our models found that UPA was the dominant choice of oral EC among COC users with a prolonged “missed” pill episode, regardless of body mass index or an adverse interaction of COCs on UPA. Implications: Ulipristal acetate is the dominant choice of oral emergency contraception among combined oral contraceptive users.

AB - Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of ulipristal acetate (UPA) and levonorgestrel (LNG) emergency contraception (EC) on pregnancy prevention among combined oral contraceptive (COC) pill users with an extended pill-free interval. We accounted for the potential interaction of COCs and obesity on EC efficacy. Methods: We built a decision-analytic model using TreeAge software to evaluate the optimal oral EC strategy in a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 twenty-five-year-old women midcycle with a prolonged “missed” pill episode (8–14 days). We used a 5-year time horizon and 3% discount rate. From a healthcare perspective, we obtained probabilities, utilities and costs inflated to 2018 dollars from the literature. We set the threshold for cost-effectiveness at a standard $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. We included the following clinical outcomes: number of protected cycles, unintended pregnancies, abortions, deliveries and costs. Results: We found that UPA was the optimal method of oral EC, as it resulted in 720 fewer unintended pregnancies, 736 fewer abortions and 80 fewer deliveries at a total cost savings of $50,323 and 79 additional adjusted life-years. UPA continued to be the optimal strategy even in the case of obesity or COCs impacting UPA efficacy, in which a COC interaction would have to change efficacy of UPA by 160% before LNG was the dominant strategy. Conclusion: Our models found that UPA was the dominant choice of oral EC among COC users with a prolonged “missed” pill episode, regardless of body mass index or an adverse interaction of COCs on UPA. Implications: Ulipristal acetate is the dominant choice of oral emergency contraception among combined oral contraceptive users.

KW - Contraception

KW - Emergency contraception

KW - Family planning

KW - Levonorgestrel

KW - Missed pills

KW - Ulipristal acetate

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85066795725&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85066795725&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.contraception.2019.05.004

DO - 10.1016/j.contraception.2019.05.004

M3 - Article

JO - Contraception

JF - Contraception

SN - 0010-7824

ER -