Cited by 22Endometriosis Research and TreatmentHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management

Cost–effectiveness of elagolix versus leuprolide acetate for treating moderate-to-severe endometriosis pain in the USA

Open access
Wang, Si-Tien, Johnson, Scott J, Mitchell, Dominic, Soliman, Ahmed M, Vora, Jamie B, Agarwal, Sanjay K·2019·Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Abstract

AIM: To assess the cost-effectiveness of elagolix versus leuprolide acetate in women with moderate to severe endometriosis pain. METHODS: A Markov model was developed. The efficacy of leuprolide acetate was derived from statistical prediction models using elagolix trial data. Model inputs were extracted from Phase III clinical trials and published literature. RESULTS: Compared with leuprolide acetate, elagolix generated positive net monetary benefit (NMB) assuming a payer's willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000 per quality-adjusted life year over a 1-year time horizon: US$5660 for elagolix 150 mg and US$6443 for elagolix 200 mg. The 2-year NMBs were also positive. CONCLUSION: Elagolix was cost effective versus leuprolide acetate in the management of moderate to severe endometriosis pain over 1- and 2-year time horizons. Results were robust in sensitivity analyses.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2217/cer-2018-0124

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • According to Wang et al., the two recent FDA-approved doses of elagolix for management of moderate-to-severe pain associated with endometriosis, namely 24 months of 150 mg once daily or six months of 200 mg twice daily, both proved cost-effective versus leuprolide acetate over 1-2 years.

    “Moreover, according to Wang et al. [125], the two recent FDA-approved doses of elagolix for the management of moderate-to-severe pain associated with endometriosis, namely, 24 months of 150 mg once daily or six months of 200 mg twice daily, both proved cost-effective versus leuprolide acetate over 1–2 years.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, S.-T., Johnson, S. J., Mitchell, D., Soliman, A. M., Vora, J. B., & Agarwal, S. K.
Affiliations
  • Medtronic (India) (IN)
  • AbbVie (United States) (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Venue
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Published
2019-04
Volume
8
Issue
5
Pages
337-355
ISSN
  • 2042-6305 (ISSN-L)
  • 2042-6313
OpenAlex
W2912011793
Cited by
22
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ectopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management
Keywords
elagolix, leuprolide, endometriosis-associated pain, cost-effectiveness, net monetary benefit, quality-adjusted life years, Markov model, GnRH agonist, GnRH antagonist, endometriosis treatment
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Endometriosis, Female, Fertility Agents, Female, Humans, Hydrocarbons, Fluorinated, Markov Chains, Middle Aged, Pain, Pyrimidines, Severity of Illness Index, United States, Leuprolide, Models, Economic, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review