The cost-effectiveness of a long-acting reversible contraceptive (Implanon®) relative to oral contraception in a community setting

BackgroundWithin the setting of a UK community sexual health service, the cost-effectiveness of Implanon® and oral contraception provision over a 36-month period was compared.Study designA case-controlled retrospective cost-effectiveness study was done on a cohort of 493 Implanon® users and 493 oral contraceptive users. The actual cost of provision of both methods was calculated. Cost-effectiveness was calculated based on provision of method and pregnancy costs of each cohort.ResultsImplanon® provision is more cost-effective than oral contraception at all time points. After 12 months of use, Implanon® is half the cost of oral contraception. Oral contraception reached similar annual cost to Implanon® at 36 months of use.ConclusionsLong-acting reversible contraception is perceived to be expensive. It is reassuring to contraception providers that Implanon® is, in fact, highly cost-effective when compared to oral contraception with typical use.