Cost-effectiveness analysis of solifenacin versus oxybutynin immediate-release in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder in the United Kingdom

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 of solifenacin compared with oral antimuscarinic agents for the treatment of patients with overactive bladder in the UK

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of solifenacin 5 mg/day versus other oral antimuscarinic agents used for overactive bladder (OAB) from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Study design: In a Markov model, hypothetical patients received solifenacin 5 mg/day or a comparator antimuscarinic, after which they could switch to an alternative antimuscarinic. The model estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) over a 5-year period. Results: Solifenacin 5 mg/day was the dominant treatment strategy (i.e., less costly and more effective) versus tolterodine extended-release (ER) 4 mg/day, fesoterodine 4 and 8 mg/day, oxybutynin ER 10 mg/day and solifenacin 10 mg/day, and was cost-effective (i.e., ICERs below the £30,000 per QALY threshold generally applied in the NHS) versus oxybutynin immediate release (IR) 10 mg/day, tolterodine IR 4 mg/day and trospium chloride 60 mg/day. The probability of solifenacin 5 mg/day being dominant/cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per QALY was 57-98%. Conclusions: Solifenacin 5 mg/day appears to be a cost-effective strategy for the treatment of OAB over a 5-year timeframe compared with other oral antimuscarinic agents in the UK. These findings are important for decision-makers considering the economic implications of selecting treatments for OAB.

[Medico-economic evaluation of urological cares of spinal cord injured patients: A review]

INTRODUCTION

To provide an overview of the urological management of spinal cord injured patients based on an economic analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search from January 1994 to December 2014 was performed using Medline and Embase database using the following keywords: cost-effectiveness; cost-benefit; cost-utility; spinal cord injury; neurogenic bladder; intermittent catheterization; antimuscarinics; botulinum toxin; sacral neuromodulation; tibial nerve; Brindley; sphincterotomy. The tool used for comparison was the QALY ("quality adjusted life years"); an indicator between 0 and 1 allowing the comparison between two medical treatments using cost per QALY.

RESULTS

Solifenacin (5 to 10mg) is the most cost-effective treatment with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 19,893 €/QALY compared to trospium 40mg, of 16,657 €/QALY compared to trospium 60mg, of 12,309 £/QALY compared to oxybutinin. Botulinum toxin A is also cost-effective with an ICER of 24,720 $/QALY compared to best supportive cares for anticholinergic-refractory neurogenic detrusor overactivity.

CONCLUSION

Solifenacin and botulinum toxin A appears to be the most cost-effective treatments for spinal injured urological cares. There is a pressing need to both increase and improve data collection and research on spinal cord injury.