ArticlePharmacoEconomics2003
Economic evaluation of norethisterone acetate/ethinylestradiol (FemHRT) for women with menopausal symptoms.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Menopausal hormone therapy: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness evaluations.BMC health services research · 2017Pooled it
- The effect of low-dose combined hormone therapy (oestradiol and norethindrone acetate) on serum C-reactive protein levels and life quality in natural menopause women.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2021Article
- HT update: spotlight on estradiol/norethindrone acetate combination therapy.Clinical interventions in aging · 2008Review
- Psychosocial and socioeconomic burden of vasomotor symptoms in menopause: a comprehensive review.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2005Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe objective of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of a continuous combined oral preparation of norethisterone (norethindrone) acetate and ethinylestradiol (NA/EE) [FemHRT] as both a first-line and second-line therapy for menopausal women. PERSPECTIVE: Third-party payer.
methodsThe cost effectiveness of NA/EE was assessed as both a first- and second-line therapy in comparison with conjugated equine oestrogen 0.625mg and medroxyprogesterone acetate 2.5mg (CEE/MPA) and no therapy. Analysis was conducted within a Markov model with states relating to the presence and absence of vaginal bleeding, menopausal symptoms and hip fracture. Analysis forecasted life expectancy, QALYs and lifetime costs for a 50-year-old menopausal woman. Compliance was modelled related to menopausal symptoms and vaginal bleeding. For the base-case analysis, it was assumed that compliant women would take therapy for up to 5 years. Sensitivity analysis assumed therapy was taken only for 1 year.
resultsCompared with both CEE/MPA and no therapy, NA/EE led to an increase in both costs and QALYs, both as a first- and second-line therapy. For first-line therapy, the incremental cost per QALY gained for NA/EE was $2200 Canadian dollars ($Can; 1999 values) [compared with no therapy] and was $Can20 300 (compared with CEE/MPA). For second-line therapy, the incremental cost per QALY gained for NA/EE was $Can900 (compared with no therapy) and was $Can16 400 (compared with CEE/MPA). Results were robust to most sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsNA/EE is a cost-effective therapy for women with menopausal symptoms both as a first-line and second-line therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.