Cost-effectiveness of overactive bladder treatments: From the US payer perspective

Brian Murray; Sam H. Hessami; Dmitry Gultyaev; Johanna Lister; Roger Dmochowski; Kristin Khalaf Gillard; Sanja Stanisic; Amy Tung; Robert Boer; Steven Kaplan

doi:10.2217/cer-2018-0079

Cost-effectiveness of overactive bladder treatments: From the US payer perspective

Brian Murray, Sam H. Hessami, Dmitry Gultyaev, Johanna Lister, Roger Dmochowski, Kristin Khalaf Gillard, Sanja Stanisic, Amy Tung, Robert Boer, Steven Kaplan

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

26 Scopus citations

Abstract

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA), implantable sacral nerve stimulation devices, percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, anticholinergic medications and mirabegron compared with best supportive care (BSC) for management of refractory overactive bladder (OAB). Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of treatment options with BSC over a 10-year time horizon. Resource utilization, discontinuation rates and costs were derived from unpublished and published sources. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were reported. Results: Treatment with onabotA 100U produced the largest gain in QALYs (7.179) and lowest estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (32,680/QALY) of all assessed treatments compared with BSC. Conclusion: Compared with BSC, onabotA 100U was the most cost-effective treatment option for patients with refractory OAB.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	61-71
Number of pages	11
Journal	Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Volume	8
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2018-0079
State	Published - Jan 2019
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

cost-effectiveness
onabotulinumtoxinA
overactive bladder

Access to Document

10.2217/cer-2018-0079

Cite this

@article{b80bbd9b1a8c44d7ac2fb93aca264029,

title = "Cost-effectiveness of overactive bladder treatments: From the US payer perspective",

abstract = "Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA), implantable sacral nerve stimulation devices, percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, anticholinergic medications and mirabegron compared with best supportive care (BSC) for management of refractory overactive bladder (OAB). Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of treatment options with BSC over a 10-year time horizon. Resource utilization, discontinuation rates and costs were derived from unpublished and published sources. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were reported. Results: Treatment with onabotA 100U produced the largest gain in QALYs (7.179) and lowest estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (32,680/QALY) of all assessed treatments compared with BSC. Conclusion: Compared with BSC, onabotA 100U was the most cost-effective treatment option for patients with refractory OAB.",

keywords = "cost-effectiveness, onabotulinumtoxinA, overactive bladder",

author = "Brian Murray and Hessami, {Sam H.} and Dmitry Gultyaev and Johanna Lister and Roger Dmochowski and Gillard, {Kristin Khalaf} and Sanja Stanisic and Amy Tung and Robert Boer and Steven Kaplan",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2018 Brian Murray et al.",

year = "2019",

month = jan,

doi = "10.2217/cer-2018-0079",

language = "English",

volume = "8",

pages = "61--71",

journal = "Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research",

issn = "2042-6305",

publisher = "Becaris Publishing Ltd",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-effectiveness of overactive bladder treatments

T2 - From the US payer perspective

AU - Murray, Brian

AU - Hessami, Sam H.

AU - Gultyaev, Dmitry

AU - Lister, Johanna

AU - Dmochowski, Roger

AU - Gillard, Kristin Khalaf

AU - Stanisic, Sanja

AU - Tung, Amy

AU - Boer, Robert

AU - Kaplan, Steven

PY - 2019/1

Y1 - 2019/1

N2 - Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA), implantable sacral nerve stimulation devices, percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, anticholinergic medications and mirabegron compared with best supportive care (BSC) for management of refractory overactive bladder (OAB). Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of treatment options with BSC over a 10-year time horizon. Resource utilization, discontinuation rates and costs were derived from unpublished and published sources. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were reported. Results: Treatment with onabotA 100U produced the largest gain in QALYs (7.179) and lowest estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (32,680/QALY) of all assessed treatments compared with BSC. Conclusion: Compared with BSC, onabotA 100U was the most cost-effective treatment option for patients with refractory OAB.

AB - Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA), implantable sacral nerve stimulation devices, percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, anticholinergic medications and mirabegron compared with best supportive care (BSC) for management of refractory overactive bladder (OAB). Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of treatment options with BSC over a 10-year time horizon. Resource utilization, discontinuation rates and costs were derived from unpublished and published sources. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were reported. Results: Treatment with onabotA 100U produced the largest gain in QALYs (7.179) and lowest estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (32,680/QALY) of all assessed treatments compared with BSC. Conclusion: Compared with BSC, onabotA 100U was the most cost-effective treatment option for patients with refractory OAB.

KW - cost-effectiveness

KW - onabotulinumtoxinA

KW - overactive bladder

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85058754468&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2217/cer-2018-0079

DO - 10.2217/cer-2018-0079

M3 - Article

C2 - 30511584

AN - SCOPUS:85058754468

SN - 2042-6305

VL - 8

SP - 61

EP - 71

JO - Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

JF - Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

IS - 1

ER -

Cost-effectiveness of overactive bladder treatments: From the US payer perspective

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this