Advertisement

A Cost Effectiveness Model of Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive Methods in the Brazilian National Health System

      Introduction

      The use of long-acting reversible contraceptives is low among adolescents owing to the high up-front cost. In this study, a 5-year cost-effectiveness model and budget impact analysis were used to compare the use of long-acting reversible contraceptives with the use of combined oral contraceptives among Brazilian adolescents.

      Methods

      A Markov model was developed to mirror the clinical and economic effects of long-acting reversible contraceptives among sexually active Brazilian adolescents in the public health system for a 5-year duration, starting from 2018. The costs were expressed in U.S.$, and a 5% discount rate was applied for both costs and benefits. Model inputs included costs of the contraceptive methods, contraceptive discontinuation and adherence rates, abortion, and birth costs associated with unintended pregnancies. The model outcomes were avoided pregnancies, abortions, and births. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

      Results

      Copper intrauterine device use was dominant 100% of the time for all outcomes, and a budget impact analysis revealed a cost savings of $422,431,269.10 in the 5-year period. Levonorgestrel intrauterine system and subdermal implant use were cost effective for all outcomes. The budget impact analyses revealed costs of $65,645,417.54 for levonorgestrel intrauterine system and $302,852,972.12 for subdermal implant use during the 5-year study period.

      Conclusions

      According to this Brazilian model, copper intrauterine device use is dominant, and levonorgestrel intrauterine systems and subdermal implants are more cost effective than combined oral contraceptives.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      REFERENCES

        • Darroch JE
        • Woog V
        • Bankole A
        • Ashford LS
        Adding it up: costs and benefits of meeting the contraceptive needs of adolescents.
        Guttmacher Institute, New York, NYPublished May 2016
        • Theme-Filha MM
        • Baldisserotto ML
        • Fraga AC
        • Ayers S
        • da Gama SG
        • Leal MD
        Factors associated with unintended pregnancy in Brazil: cross-sectional results from the Birth in Brazil National Survey, 2011/2012.
        Reprod Health. 2016; 13: 118https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-016-0227-8
        • Paim J
        • Travassos C
        • Almeida C
        • Bahia L
        • Macinko J
        The Brazilian health system: history, advances, and challenges.
        Lancet. 2011; 377: 1778-1797https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60054-8
        • Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística
        Indicadores IBGE: contas nacionais trimestrais indicadores de volume e valores correntes.
        Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilPublished October 2018
        • Vieira CS
        Long-acting reversible contraceptives: an important approach to reduce unintended pregnancies.
        Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2016; 38: 207-209https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1583761
        • Bahamondes L
        • Fernandes A
        • Monteiro I
        Barriers to implementing and consolidating a family planning program that would meet Brazilian needs.
        Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2017; 39: 373-375https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1604423
        • Winner B
        • Peipert JF
        • Zhao Q
        • et al.
        Effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception.
        N Engl J Med. 2012; 366: 1998-2007https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1110855
      1. ACOG Committee opinion no. 735: adolescents and long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 131: e130-e139https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002632
        • Stoddard A
        • McNicholas C
        • Peipert JF
        Efficacy and safety of long-acting reversible contraception.
        Drugs. 2011; 71: 969-980https://doi.org/10.2165/11591290-000000000-00000
        • Abma JC
        • Martinez GM
        • Copen CE
        Teenagers in the United States: sexual activity, contraceptive use, and childbearing, national survey of family growth 2006–2008.
        Vital Health Stat 23. 2010; : 1-47
        • Mestad R
        • Secura G
        • Allsworth JE
        • Madden T
        • Zhao Q
        • Peipert JF
        Acceptance of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods by adolescent participants in the Contraceptive CHOICE Project.
        Contraception. 2011; 84: 493-498https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2011.03.001
        • Mcnicholas C
        • Madden T
        • Secura G
        • Peipert JF
        The Contraceptive CHOICE Project round up: what we did and what we learned.
        Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 57: 635-643https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0000000000000070
        • Committee on Adolescent Health Care
        Committee opinion no 699: adolescent pregnancy, contraception, and sexual activity.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 129: e142-e149https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002045
        • Kavanaugh ML
        • Jerman J
        Contraceptive method use in the United States: trends and characteristics between 2008, 2012 and 2014.
        Contraception. 2018; 97: 14-21https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2017.10.003
        • National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health (UK)
        Long-Acting Reversible Contraception: The Effective and Appropriate Use of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception.
        Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, United Kingdom2005
        • Blythe MJ
        • Diaz A
        • American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence
        Contraception and adolescents.
        Pediatrics. 2007; 120: 1135-1148https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-2535
        • Briggs A
        • Sculpher M
        An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation.
        Pharmacoeconomics. 1998; 13: 397-409https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199813040-00003
        • Sonnenberg FA
        • Beck JR
        Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide.
        Med Decis Making. 1993; 13: 322-338https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9301300409
      2. Ministereo da Saúde: DATASUS. Departamento de Informática do Sistema Único de Saúde. https://datasus.saude.gov.br/. Accessed July 10, 2019.

        • Ogata JF
        • Fonseca MC
        • Miyoshi MH
        • Almeida MF
        • Guinsburg R
        Costs of hospitalization in preterm infants: impact of antenatal steroid therapy.
        J Pediatr (Rio J). 2016; 92: 24-31https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2015.03.004
      3. Banco de preços em saúde. Ministerio da Saúde. https://www.gov.br/saude/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/banco-de-precos/banco-de-precos. Accessed November 10, 2019.

        • Severens JL
        • Milne RJ
        Discounting health outcomes in economic evaluation: the ongoing debate.
        Value Health. 2004; 7: 397-401https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.74002.x
        • Smith DH
        • Gravelle H
        The practice of discounting in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions.
        Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001; 17: 236-243https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462300105094
      4. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de ciência, tecnologia e insumos estratégicos. diretrizes metodológicas: diretriz de avaliação econômica: 2nd edition. https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/diretrizes_metodologicas_diretriz_avaliacao_economica.pdf. Published 2014. Accessed November 20, 2021.

        • Farah D
        • Andrade TRM
        • Di Bella ZIKJ
        • Girão MJBC
        • Fonseca MCM
        Current evidence of contraceptive uptake, pregnancy and continuation rates in young women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2020; 25: 492-501https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2020.1833187
        • Chacko MR
        • Wiemann CM
        • Buzi RS
        • Kozinetz CA
        • Peskin M
        • Smith PB
        Choice of postpartum contraception: factors predisposing pregnant adolescents to choose less effective methods over long-acting reversible contraception.
        J Adolesc Health. 2016; 58: 628-635https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.12.002
      5. Quinze em cada cem adolescentes grávidas fazem aborto, diz ONU.
        UOL Noticias, São Paulo, BrazilPublished July 11, 2013
        • Cohen DJ
        • Reynolds MR
        Interpreting the results of cost-effectiveness studies.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008; 52: 2119-2126https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2008.09.018
      6. Tornado diagram. York Health Economics Consortium. https://yhec.co.uk/glossary/tornado-diagram/. Accessed November 20, 2021.

        • Gonçalves H
        • Machado EC
        • Soares AL
        • et al.
        Sexual initiation among adolescents (10 to 14 years old) and health behaviors [published correction appears in Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2015;18(4):999].
        Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2015; 18: 25-41https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-5497201500010003
        • Silva ADSN
        • Silva BLCN
        • Júnior AFDS
        • Silva MCFD
        • Guerreiro JF
        • Sousa ADSCDA
        Beginning of sexual life in school adolescents: a cross-sectional study on risky sexual behavior in Abaetetuba, State of Pará, Brazil.
        Rev Pan-Amaz Saúde. 2015; 6: 27-34https://doi.org/10.5123/s2176-62232015000300004
        • Schramm JMDA
        • Romulo PS
        • Mendes LVP
        Políticas de austeridade e seus impactos na saúde: futuros de brasil textos para debate.
        Cento de Estudos Estratégicos da Fiocruz, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilPublished May 2018 (Accessed XXX)
        • Ministério da Saúde, Departamento de Atenção Básica
        Cadernos de Atenção Básica: saúde sexual e saúde reprodutiva.
        Ministério da Saúde, Secretaria de Políticas de Saúde, Departamento de Atenção Básica, Brasilia, BrasilPublished 2013 (Accessed XXX)
        • Family Planning 2020
        Global consensus statement for expanding contraceptive choice for adolescents and youth to include long-acting reversible contraception.
        Family Planning 2020, Washington, DCPublished 2020
        • Concepcion K
        • Lacey S
        • McGeechan K
        • Estoesta J
        • Bateson D
        • Botfield J
        Cost–benefit analysis of enhancing the uptake of long-acting reversible contraception in Australia.
        Aust Health Rev. 2020; 44: 385-391https://doi.org/10.1071/AH18190
        • 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: 1338-1345https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den091
        • Engstrand S
        • Kopp Kallner H
        Cost of unintended pregnancy in Sweden-a possibility to lower costs by increasing LARC usage.
        Contraception. 2018; 97: 445-450https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2018.01.009
        • Trussell J
        • Henry N
        • Hassan F
        • Prezioso A
        • Law A
        • Filonenko A
        Burden of unintended pregnancy in the United States: potential savings with increased use of long-acting reversible contraception.
        Contraception. 2013; 87: 154-161https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2012.07.016
        • Henry N
        • Schlueter M
        • Lowin J
        • et al.
        Cost of unintended pregnancy in Norway: a role for long-acting reversible contraception.
        J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2015; 41: 109-115https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2014-100878
        • Holmes KK
        • Levine R
        • Weaver M
        Effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted infections.
        Bull World Health Organ. 2004; 82: 454-461
        • Leal MDC
        • Szwarcwald CL
        • Almeida PVB
        • et al.
        Reproductive, maternal, neonatal and child health in the 30 years since the creation of the Unified Health System (SUS).
        Cien Saude Colet. 2018; 23: 1915-1928https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232018236.03942018
        • Diniz D
        • Medeiros M
        • Madeiro A
        National abortion survey 2016.
        Ciênc Saúde Colet. 2017; 22: 653-660https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232017222.23812016
        • Lakha F
        • Glasier AF
        Continuation rates of Implanon in the UK: data from an observational study in a clinical setting.
        Contraception. 2006; 74: 287-289https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2006.05.072