ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2025
Cost-effectiveness of dienogest compared to gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists for the management of endometriosis in Vietnam.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative effectiveness of dienogest versus ethinyl estradiol/levonorgestrel combined oral contraceptive therapy in women with endometriosis-associated chronic pelvic pain.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Observational
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEndometriosis-related dysmenorrhea and pelvic pain impose significant economic and quality-of-life burdens. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of dienogest compared to gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRH-a) for managing dysmenorrhea and pelvic pain in Vietnam.
designThe cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model was conducted from a healthcare payer perspective. Model input parameters were obtained from meta-analyses, published literature, and local data sources. One-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to assess the robustness of the findings.
settingVietnamese healthcare system context.
participantsHypothetical cohort of women with endometriosis experiencing dysmenorrhea or pelvic pain.
interventionsDienogest compared with GnRH-a therapies (triptorelin, leuprorelin, goserelin).
main outcome measuresCosts, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated over two years.
resultsDienogest was the dominant treatment for dysmenorrhea, with the lowest cost ($363.3) and highest QALYs (1.74) compared to triptorelin ($739.3; 1.62 QALYs; ICER -$3,292/QALY) and leuprorelin ($744.0; 1.70 QALYs; ICER -$11,454/QALY). For pelvic pain, dienogest ($381.5, 1.64 QALYs) also dominated triptorelin ($720.4; 1.60 QALYs; ICER -$10,919/QALY), leuprorelin ($773.4; 1.54 QALYs; ICER -$4,300/QALY), and goserelin ($753.1; 1.49 QALYs; ICER -$2,609/QALY).One-way sensitivity analysis identified the probability of symptom resolution and utility values as key drivers of cost-effectiveness. PSA confirmed dienogest's high probability (≥ 99%) of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of one GDP per capita.
conclusionDienogest is a cost-effective alternative to GnRH-a drugs for treating dysmenorrhea and pelvic pain in Vietnam, offering improved health outcomes at a lower cost. These findings support its broader adoption in clinical practice and healthcare policy.
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.