Real-world cost-effectiveness of etonogestrel implants compared to long-term and short term reversible contraceptive methods in France

References

• INPES. Contraception: les Françaises utilisent-elles un contraceptif adapté à leur mode de vie? [Do French women use a contraceptive adapted to their lifestyle?]. Press release; October 2011 [cited 2020 Sept 28]. Available from: https://solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/DP_Contraception_21-10-11_VFF_2x.pdf. French.
   Google Scholar
• Center for Disease Control. Reproductive Health. Contraception. Available from https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/index.htm?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Freproductivehealth%2Funintendedpregnancy%2Fcontraception.htm. Last accessed September 28, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Sedgh G, Bearak J, Singh S, et al. Abortion incidence between 1990 and 2014: global, regional, and subregional levels and trends. Lancet. 2016;388(10041):258–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• French National Authority for Health (HAS). État des lieux des pratiques contraceptives et des freins à l’accès et au choix d’une contraception adaptée [Overview of contraceptive practices and barriers to access and choice of appropriate contraception]; April 2013 [cited 2020 Sept 28]. Available from http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2013-05/contraception_freins_reco2clics-5.pdf. French.
   Google Scholar
• Rahib D, Le Guen M, Lydié N. Baromètre santé 2016. Contraception. Quatre ans après la crise de la pilule, les évolutions se poursuivent. [2016 Health Survey 2016. Contraception. Four years after the pill crisis, changes continue to take place]. Santé publique France: Etudes et enquêtes; 2017. French
   Google Scholar
• Vilain A. Interruptions volontaires de grossesse: une hausse confirmée en 2019 [Abortions: an increase confirmed in 2019]. DREES. Études et Résultats. 2020; n°1163. French
   Google Scholar
• French National Authority for Health (HAS). Efficacité des méthodes contraceptives [Effectiveness of contraceptive methods]; 2013 [cited 2020 Sept 28]. Available from: https://www.has-sante.fr/upload/docs/application/pdf/2013-04/efficacite-methodes-contraceptives.pdf. French.
   Google Scholar
• Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception. 2011;83(5):397–404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Power J, French R, Cowan F. Subdermal implantable contraceptives versus other forms of reversible contraceptives or other implants as effective methods of preventing pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(3):CD001326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahamondes L. Interventions Subdermal implantable contraceptives versus other forms of reversible contraceptives or other implants as effective methods of preventing pregnancy: RHL commentary. The WHO Reproductive Health Library. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Moreau C, Trussell J, Desfreres J, et al. Patterns of contraceptive use before and after an abortion: results from a nationally representative survey of women undergoing an abortion in France. Contraception. 2010;82(4):337–344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreau C, Desfrères J, Bajos N. Circonstances des échecs et prescription contraceptive post-IVG: analyse des trajectoires contraceptives autour de l'IVG [Circumstances of failure and post-abortion contraceptive prescription: analysis of contraceptive trajectories around abortion]. Revue française des affaires sociales. 2011;1(1):148–161. French
   Google Scholar
• French National Authority for Health (HAS). Avis d’efficience. Nexplanon® (Etonogestrel) [Efficiency notice of Nexplanon®]. 2015 Sept 15 [cited 2020 Sept 28]. Available from: http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2016-03/nexplanon_15092015_avis_efficience.pdf. French
   Google Scholar
• Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Progestogen-only implants. Clinical guidance. London: FSRH; 2014 [cited 2020 Sept 28]. Available from: https://www.fsrh.org/documents/cec-ceu-guidance-implants-feb-2014/cec-ceu-guidance-implants-feb-2014.pdf
   Google Scholar
• AFSSAPS. Stratégies de choix des méthodes contraceptives chez la femme. Recommandation pour la pratique clinique [Strategies for choosing contraceptive methods for women. Recommendations for clinical practice]. AFSSAPS, ANAES, INPES; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Hatcher R, Trussell J, Nelson A, et al. Contraceptive technology. 20th ed. Atlanta (GA): Ardent Media; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• 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):304–309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mavranezouli I, Wilkinson C. Long-acting reversible contraceptives: not only effective, but also a cost-effective option for the National Health Service. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2006;32(1):3–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(6):1338–1345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varney SJ, Guest JF. Relative cost effectiveness of Depo-Provera, Implanon, and Mirena in reversible long-term hormonal contraception in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(17):1141–1151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trussell J, Lalla AM, Doan QV, et al. Cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States. Contraception. 2009;79(1):5–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trussell J, Hassan F, Henry N, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) 13.5 mg in contraception. Contraception. 2014;89(5):451–459.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips CJ. Economic analysis of long-term reversible contraceptives. Focus on Implanon. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17(2):209–221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• French National Authority for Health (HAS). Guide méthodologique: Choix méthodologiques pour l’évaluation économique à la HAS. [Choices in methods for economic evaluation]; July 2, 2020. French
   Google Scholar
• Agostini A, Godard C, Laurendeau C, et al. Effectiveness and cost of contraception in France (FACET study): a cohort study from the French National Healthcare Insurance Database. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;229:137–143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreau C, Bohet A, Le Guen M, et al. Unplanned or unwanted? A randomized study of national estimates of pregnancy intentions. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(6):1663–1670.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apter D, Briggs P, Tuppurainen M, et al. A 12-month multicenter, randomized study comparing the levonorgestrel intrauterine system with the etonogestrel subdermal implant. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(1):151–157.e5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohannessian A, Levy A, Jaillant N, et al. A French survey of contraceptive implant migration to the pulmonary artery. Contraception. 2019;100(4):255–257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed S, Do Minh T, Lange JA, et al. Real world data on Nexplanon® procedure-related events: final results from the Nexplanon Observational Risk Assessment study (NORA). Contraception. 2019;100(1):31–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creinin MD, Kaunitz AM, Darney PD, Schwartz L, et al. The US etonogestrel implant mandatory clinical training and active monitoring programs: 6-year experience. Contraception. 2017;95(2):205–210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darney P, Patel A, Rosen K, et al. Safety and efficacy of a single-rod etonogestrel implant (Implanon): results from 11 international clinical trials. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(5):1646–1653. Epub 2008 Apr 18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinemann K, Reed S, Moehner S, et al. Risk of uterine perforation with levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intrauterine devices in the European Active Surveillance Study on Intrauterine Devices. Contraception. 2015;91(4):274–279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ethinylestradiol + drospirenone-containing oral contraceptives. Risk of venous thromboembolism. Summary Assessment Report of the PhVWP May 2011. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Report/2011/05/WC500106708.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lidegaard Ø, Løkkegaard E, Jensen A, et al. Thrombotic stroke and myocardial infarction with hormonal contraception. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(24):2257–2266.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cost-Effectiveness Frontier [online]. 2016. York; York Health Economics Consortium; 2016. https://yhec.co.uk/glossary/cost-effectiveness-frontier
   Google Scholar