ETONOGESTREL
Information current as at: 1 September 2026
Submission Details
- Brand name:
-
- Implanon NXT®
- Form and strength:
-
- Subcutaneous implant 68 mg
- Submission sponsor:
- ORGANON PHARMA PTY LTD
- Condition/indication:
(therapeutic use) -
- Contraception
- Listing requested:
- To request a revised price for the current listing of etonogestrel for patients requiring contraception.
- Funding program:
- PBS General Schedule
- Request authority level:
- Unrestricted Benefit
- PBAC Submission type:
- Change to existing listing (Category 3)
- Comment:
- --
- Other PBAC consideration:
- --
Progress Details
-
Submission received for: - July 2026 PBAC meeting
-
Opportunity for consumer comment: - Open 25/03/2026 and close 20/05/2026 (see PBS Website)
-
PBAC meeting: - Held on 08/07/2026
-
PBAC outcome published: - Not Recommended (see PBAC Outcomes)
-
Lodgement of required documentation: - Not applicable
-
Agreement to listing arrangements: - Not applicable
-
Government processes: - Not applicable
-
Medicine listed on the PBS: - Not applicable
PBAC Outcome
The PBAC did not recommend a price increase for etonogestrel 68 mg subcutaneous implant (Implanon-NXT®). The PBAC noted that the submission requested a price increase consistent with the price per month of newer combined oral contraceptives.
The PBAC welcomed input from individuals which described the relative ease of insertion for Implanon compared to an intimate gynaecological procedure required for an intrauterine device such as Mirena.
The PBAC noted that the sponsor referred to the outcomes of an oral contraceptive stakeholder meeting in October 2024. The PBAC recalled its recommendations for newer oral contraceptives was based on defined benefits for some women other than contraceptive efficacy. The PBAC advised that the submission did not provide evidence that Implanon-NXT had any newly identified benefits that the PBAC had not previously considered.
The PBAC considered that the clinical claims in the submission were not adequately supported by the data provided. The PBAC noted the requested price increase would result in a high cost to the PBS/RPBS and was not justified by the submission evidence.
Sponsor’s Comment:
The sponsor had no comment.