Cost effectiveness of fesoterodine and tolterodine for the treatment of overactive bladder with urge urinary incontinence in Spain and Finland

Review of Economic Value Drivers of the Treatment of Overactive Bladder

Overactive bladder (OAB) is a symptom-driven condition with economic burden estimated to be on the order of several hundred dollars or euros per patient in some North American and European countries. This work reviews recently published economic models to evaluate how health states are defined, what cost components are considered, and what utility values are used to estimate the cost effectiveness of OAB pharmacotherapies, botulinum toxin, or sacral neuromodulation. It was found that no clear standard exists for determining OAB health states, although most were defined by some measure of incontinence frequency. Costs of physician visits and incontinence pads were included in nearly all models; however, OAB-associated depression and nursing home costs were rarely included, despite being large cost drivers of global economic burden studies. Utility values used in the models ranged from 0.544 to 0.933, highlighting the uncertainty associated with how OAB patients value health-related quality of life. More research is warranted so that health states providing delineations among OAB symptom severity and quality of life are clinically and economically meaningful as well as meaningful to affected patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fesoterodine flexible dose in newly diagnosed patients with overactive bladder in routine clinical practice in Spain

Objective

To carry out cost-effectiveness analysis from the Spanish National Health System perspective, of treating overactive bladder (OAB), in newly diagnosed patients with two flexible doses of fesoterodine in routine clinical practice.

Patients and methods

Economic evaluation of flexible-dose fesoterodine in newly diagnosed patients, including two treatment groups: standard escalating from 4 to 8 mg or fast escalating to 8 mg. Costs were estimated from health care resources utilization related to OAB, and were expressed in 2015 Euros. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were obtained from overactive bladder questionnaire-short form. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out.

Results

Three hundred and ninety symptomatic OAB patients treated with fesoterodine and newly diagnosed (141 in fast escalating group and 249 in standard escalating) were analyzed. Adjusted health care total costs were not statistically different; difference −€4.1 (confidence interval: −153.3; 25.1) P=0.842. QALYs were higher in fast escalating to high dose vs standard escalating group, resulting in a cost of −€16,020/QALY gained for fast escalating vs standard escalating group.

Conclusion

When the cost-effectiveness threshold is set at a maximum value of €30,000/QALY gained, fesoterodine fast escalating group was cost-effective vs standard escalating group 67.6% of the time. The treatment with fesoterodine, in female patients newly diagnosed, fast escalating to 8 mg was a cost-effective option relative to escalating traditionally from 4 to 8 mg, in the management of OAB in routine clinical practice, from the Spanish National Health System perspective.

Cost effectiveness analysis of fesoterodine compared to mirabegron in first-line therapy setting for overactive bladder with urge urinary incontinence, from the Spanish National Health System perspective

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatment of Overactive Bladder (OAB) with fesoterodine relative to mirabegron, from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective.

METHODS

A decision tree model was developed to represent a typical clinical process of 52-week of treatment for an OAB patient with urge urinary incontinence (UUI) initiating first-line therapy with fesoterodine 4mg, including optional titration to 8mg, vs.mirabegron 50mg. Efficacy data were obtained from a Bayesian indirect treatment meta-analysis. Patients with UUI of less than one episode/day were defined as treatment responder and persistence was assessed at weeks 4, 12 and 24. At week 12, non-responders discontinued treatment permanently. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated based on time spent in responder and non-responder states. OAB-related drug and medical care costs including physician visits, laboratory tests, incontinence pads, and comorbidities (fracture, skin infection, urinary tract infections and depression) were modeled and expressed in €2015.

RESULTS

At week 52, the percentage of responders was 20.8% for patients starting on fesoterodine 4mg who optionally titrated to 8mg and 19.4% for patients treated with mirabegron. QALYs were slightly higher with fesoterodine than mirabegron (0.7703vs. 0.7668, difference=0.0035). Fesoterodine treatment also had slightly higher total costs than mirabegron (3,296€vs. 3,217, difference=79€), resulting in a cost of 22,523/QALY€ gained for fesoterodine versus mirabegron. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the slight advantage of fesoterodine with a 61.1% probability of being cost-effective at the 30,000€ willingness-to-pay for 1QALY threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the relatively small 1-year cost difference between the two treatments, fesoterodine can be considered a cost-effective option relative to mirabegron for the first-line management of OAB with UUI in Spain.

Economic impact of using fesoterodine for the treatment of overactive bladder with urge urinary incontinence in a vulnerable elderly population in the United States

OBJECTIVES

To assess the costs of treating overactive bladder (OAB) with fesoterodine compared to no OAB pharmacotherapy among vulnerable elderly from the US payer perspective.

METHODS

A decision analytic cost model was developed to estimate the 52-week costs of a cohort of vulnerable elderly with OAB initiating treatment with fesoterodine or no OAB pharmacotherapy. Vulnerable elderly OAB patients were defined as those aged ≥65 years with self-reported urge urinary incontinence (UUI) symptoms for ≥3 months, 2-15 UUI episodes/day, and at risk of deteriorating health by a score of ≥3 on the Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES)-13. Patients were evaluated for fesoterodine treatment response (defined as no UUI episodes) and persistence at weeks 12, 26, and 52. The model included a hypothetical health plan with 100,000 elderly members. A total of 7096 vulnerable elderly subjects were identified as the model target population based on the percentage of vulnerable elderly and annual prevalence of OAB among vulnerable elderly. OAB-related costs included fesoterodine drug acquisition costs, healthcare resource use (inpatient hospitalization, outpatient visits, and physician office visits), and OAB-related co-morbidities (falls/fractures, urinary tract infections, depression, and nursing home admissions). All costs were inflated to 2013 US$ using the medical care component of the consumer price index (CPI).

RESULTS

When 7096 vulnerable elderly OAB patients were treated with fesoterodine, US healthcare payers could save $11,463,981 per year, or $1616 per patient vs no OAB pharmacotherapy. Univariate one-way sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of the findings and showed results were most sensitive to changes in fesoterodine efficacy followed by annual costs of inpatient hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

From a US payer perspective, treating vulnerable elderly OAB patients with fesoterodine was cost-saving compared to no OAB pharmacotherapy.