Invasive urodynamic testing prior to surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence in women: cost-effectiveness and value of information analyses in the context of a mixed methods feasibility study

Financial Toxicity for Female Patients with Urinary Incontinence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Urinary incontinence (UI) is a common global condition that has been noted to disproportionately affect women. In this review, the authors present discussion of factors contributing to cost of care and various modalities of cost-effective care for UI for female patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

We found insurance and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs strongly impact of costs for patients. Further, in evaluation of UI, diagnosis can be a costly multi-step process for effective treatment. Treatment can be multimodal, including non-surgical (e.g., pessary, vaginal insert, pelvic floor muscle training, or PFMT), of which PFMT is a cost-effective, effective, and accessible treatment. Pharmacologic management is generally second-line for overactive bladder, but anti-muscarinic drugs and beta-3 agonists are cost-effective depending on willingness-to-pay and the health system in which they are acquired, respectively. Surgical management is considered the most cost-effective treatment as willingness-to-pay increased, with minimally invasive slings being the mainstay. Other relatively novel treatments are also discussed (e.g., EMSELLA) but require further research. Additionally, we discuss systematic barriers in decisions to seek care for urinary incontinence. Urologists are key agents in treating UI for their female patients, and seeking cost-effective options for treatment remains pivotal for quality care.

Does pre-operative urodynamics lead to better outcomes in management of urinary incontinence in women? A linked systematic review and meta-analysis

The use of preoperative urodynamics as a standard investigation for urinary incontinence (UI) has long been a subject of debate, with a lack of robust evidence to demonstrate improved patients' outcomes. We aim to compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of urodynamics versus office clinical evaluation only, prior to the treatment of UI. We conducted three linked systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing urodynamics assessment versus clinical evaluation only in women prior to 1) non-surgical treatment of UI, 2a) surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and 2b) invasive treatment for overactive bladder (OAB). Women with severe pelvic organ prolapse, previous continence surgery and neuropathic bladder were excluded. Primary outcomes were patient-reported and objective success post-treatment. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, quality of life, sexual function and health economic measures. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for each category, which was last updated on January 2019. Study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The random effects model was used to assess risk ratio and mean difference with 95% confidence interval. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by I² statistics and the quality of evidence by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Four RCTs compared urodynamics versus clinical evaluation only prior to non-surgical management of UI. Treatment consisted of pelvic floor muscle training, with or without pharmacological therapy. Meta-analysis of 150 women showed no evidence of significant difference in the patient-reported and objective success rates between groups (P = 0.520, RR: 0.91, 95% Cl 0.69-1.21, I² = 0% and P = 0.470, RR:0.87, 95% Cl 0.59-1.28, I² = n/a, respectively). Seven RCTs were identified for surgical management of SUI. The majority of women underwent mid-urethral tape procedures (retropubic or transobturator approach). Meta-analysis of 1149 women showed no evidence of significant difference in patient-reported (P = 0.850, RR:1.01, 95% CI 0.88-1.16, I² = 53%) and objective success between groups (P = 0.630, RR:1.02, 95% CI 0.95-1.08, I² = 28%). There was no significant difference in incidence of voiding dysfunction, de novo urgency, and urinary tract infection between groups. No RCTs were identified for invasive management of OAB. In conclusion, limited evidence shows that routine urodynamics prior to non-surgical management of UI or surgical management of SUI is not associated with improved treatment outcomes, when compared to clinical evaluation only. Well-designed clinical trials are needed to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of routine urodynamics prior to surgical management of SUI and OAB.

The role of urodynamics in the management of female stress urinary incontinence

AIM

The role of urodynamic study (UDS) in the management of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is one of the most controversial and debated topic in urogynecology. Here, we aimed to systematically assess the most relevant available evidence on urodynamics' value in the management of women with stress urinary incontinence.

METHODS

A systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement was performed in May 2018. Only randomized clinical trials, prospective studies, or retrospective studies articles evaluating the use of urodynamic studies in women with stress urinary incontinence were included.

RESULTS

After screening a total of 3055 records, 39 studies published from 1996 to 2018 were included.

CONCLUSIONS

In an uncomplicated population of women with SUI, it is not demonstrated that preoperative urodynamic evaluation can improve the outcome of continence surgery; however, UDS provides additional information regarding lower urinary tract function that could guide the physician to make the right therapeutic choice. UDS should be considered mandatory before surgery in complicated patients, but its use should also be evaluated in index patients when the results may help counseling and management of these women.