Cost-effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods: a review

Kusum V. Moray; Himanshu Chaurasia; Beena N. Joshi

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20220596

Authors

Kusum V. Moray Department of Community Medicine, Ashwini Rural Medical College and Hospital, Kumbhari, Solapur
Himanshu Chaurasia Health Technology Assessment Resource Hub, Indian Council of Medical Research, National Institute for Research in Reproductive and Child Health
Beena N. Joshi Health Technology Assessment Resource Hub, Indian Council of Medical Research, National Institute for Research in Reproductive and Child Health, Parel, Mumbai, Maharshtra, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20220596

Keywords:

Long-acting reversible contraceptive, Cost-effectiveness, Short acting reversible contraceptive, Narrative review, Economic evaluation

Abstract

Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) methods are proven to be effective in preventing unintended pregnancies. Evidence on cost-effectiveness of these methods will enable policy makers to introduce them in national policies and programs to improve contraceptive access. The aim was to review the studies based on economic evaluations of LARC methods and provide evidence to policy makers to renew their commitment to family planning access. A review of studies on economic evaluations of LARC methods was done. This article uses data from three electronic databases: PubMed, Cochrane and Web of Science to examine whether LARC is cost-effective for clinical trials. The results are presented as a narrative review and summary tables. The literature search yielded 87 studies and 12 studies (five economic evaluations studies from USA) and (five studies from Europe while two studies were from low and middle-income countries) were included. Out of 12 papers, nine had multiple comparators; seven included female sterilization as a comparator, while two studies compared one individual LARC contraceptive method with an individual SARC method. All studies consistently showed that LARCs dominated all SARC (short acting reversible contraceptives) methods. Within LARC, copper IUD, LNG-IUS and implant were more cost-effective than DMPA. After a period of five years, female sterilization turned out to be more cost-effective than LARC methods. LARC methods are cost-effective as compared to SARC methods, especially after 1 year of use. Vasectomy is more cost-effective than LARC methods. Policy makers can consider the findings of this review to aid decision making in contraceptive method introduction or scale-up access.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

United Nations. Fact sheet: Department of economic and social affairs, population division. Family planning and the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. New York: United Nations. 2019. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/family/familyPlanning_DataBooklet_2019.pdf. Accessed on 28 December 2021.

Kantorová V, Wheldon MC, Ueffing P, Dasgupta AN. Estimating progress towards meeting women’s contraceptive needs in 185 countries: A Bayesian hierarchical modelling study. PLoS Med. 2020;17(2):1003026.

WHO. Fact sheet: Family Planning-a global handbook for providers. Available at: https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/fp-global-handbook/en/. Accessed on 28 December 2021.

United Nations. Fact sheet: Department of economic and social affairs. population division. World contraceptive by method, 2019. Available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/files/documents/2020/Jan/un_2019_contraceptiveusebymethod_databooklet.pdf. Accessed on 28 December 2021.

Mavranezouli I. The cost-effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods in the UK: analysis based on a decision-analytic model developed for a National institute for health and clinical excellence (NICE) clinical practice guideline. Human Reproduct. 2008;23(6):1338-45.

Kolawole OO, Sowemimo OO, Ojo OO, Fasubaa OB. Contraceptive implants: a review and current perspective in southwest Nigeria. Tropic J Obstetr Gynaecol. 2018;35(2):108-12.

Staveteig S, Maliick L, Winter R. Uptake and discontinuation of long acting reversible contraceptives in low-income countries. USAID ICF Int. 2015:1-59.

Curtis KM, Peipert JF. Long-acting reversible contraception. N E J Med. 2017;376(5):461-8.

Blumenthal PD, Voedisch A, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Strategies to prevent unintended pregnancy: increasing use of long-acting reversible contraception. Human Reproduct Update. 2011;17(1):121-37.

Adetunji JA. Rising popularity of injectable contraceptives in sub-Saharan Africa. Afr Populat Stud. 2011;25(2).

Darroch JE, Singh S. Trends in contraceptive need and use in developing countries in 2003, 2008 and 2012: an analysis of national surveys. Lancet. 2013;381(9879):1756-62.

Tibaijuka L, Odongo R, Welikhe E, Mukisa W, Kugonza L, Busingye I, et al. Factors influencing use of long-acting versus short-acting contraceptive methods among reproductive-age women in a resource-limited setting. BMC Women Health. 2017;17(1):25.

Trussell J, Hassan F, Lowin J, Law A, Filonenko A. Achieving cost-neutrality with long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. Contraception. 2015;91(1):49-56.

United Nations. Fact sheet: Contraceptive use by method 2019: data booklet, 2019 Available at: https://www.un-ilibrary.org/population-and-demography/contraceptive-use-by-method-2019_1bd58a10-en. Accessed on 28 December 2021.

Ross J, Stover J. Use of modern contraception increases when more methods become available: analysis of evidence from 1982-2009. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2013;1(2):203-12.

Lipetz C, Phillips CJ, Fleming CF. The cost-effectiveness of a long-acting reversible contraceptive (Implanon®) relative to oral contraception in a community setting. Contraception. 2009;79(4):304-9.

Trussell J, Hassan F, Henry N, Pocoski J, Law A, Filonenko A. Cost-effectiveness analysis of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) 13.5 mg in contraception. Contraception. 2014;89(5):451-9.

Chiou CF, Trussell J, Reyes E, Knight K, Wallace J, Udani J, et al. Economic analysis of contraceptives for women. Contraception. 2003;68(1):3-10.

Sonnenberg FA, Burkman RT, Hagerty CG, Speroff L, Speroff T. Costs and net health effects of contraceptive methods. Contraception. 2004;69(6):447-59.

Foster DG, Biggs MA, Malvin J, Bradsberry M, Darney P, Brindis CD. Cost-savings from the provision of specific contraceptive methods in 2009. Women Health Issue. 2013;23(4):265-71.

Islamic Republic of Iran. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of contraceptive methods in Shiraz. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/119137?locale-attribute=es&locale=fr. Accessed on 28 December 2021.

Relative cost effectiveness of Depo-provera, Implanon and Mirena in reversible long-term hormonal contraception in the UK. Available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/ShowRecord.asp?ID=22005008019&ID=22005008019. Accessed on 28 December 2021.

Mavranezouli I, LARC Guideline Development Group. The cost-effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods in the UK: analysis based on a decision-analytic model developed for a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) clinical practice guideline. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(6):1338-45.

Trussell J, Lalla AM, Doan QV, Reyes E, Pinto L, Gricar J. Cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States. Contraception. 2009;79(1):5-14.

Joshi B, Moray KV, Sachin O, Chaurasia H, Begum S. Cost effectiveness of introducing etonorgestrel contraceptive implant into india’s current family welfare programme. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2020.

Lynch M, Lourenco RDA, Flattery M, Haas M. Reviewing the cost-effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods in an Australian context. Austral N Z J Obstetr Gynaecol. 2019;59(1):21-35.

Family Planning 2020. Data Dashboard, 2020. Available at: http://www.familyplanning2020.org/data-dashboard. Accessed on 29 December 2021.

Kavanaugh ML, Jerman J. Contraceptive method use in the United States: trends and characteristics between 2008, 2012 and 2014. Contraception. 2018;97(1):14-21.

United Nations. Fact sheet: Contraceptive use by method 2019: data booklet, 2019. Available at: https://www.un-ilibrary.org/population-and-demography/contraceptive-use-by-method-2019_1bd58a10-en. Accessed on 29 December 2021.

Brown W, Druce N, Bunting J, Radloff S, Koroma D, Gupta S, et al. Developing the “120 by 20” goal for the Global FP2020 Initiative. Stud Fam Plan. 2014;45(1):73-84.

Every Woman Every Child. The global strategy for women’s, children’s and adolescents health (2016-2030), 2015. Available at: http://globalstrategy.everywomaneverychild.org/. Accessed on 29 December 2021.

United Nations. General Assembly. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. resolution adopted by the general assembly on 25 September 2015 (A/RES/70/1). New York (NY): United Nations, 2015. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld. Accessed on 29 December 2021.

United Nations. Fact sheet: World Fertility and Family Planning, 2020. Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/440). 2020.

Juarez F, Gayet C, Mejia-Pailles G. Factors associated with unmet need for contraception in Mexico: evidence from the National Survey of Demographic Dynamics 2014. BMC Pub Health. 2018;18.