Cost–effectiveness of overactive bladder treatments from a US commercial and payer perspective

Abstract

Aim: The cost–effectiveness of treatment options (anticholinergics, β3-adrenoceptor agonists, onabotulinumtoxinA, sacral nerve stimulation and percutaneous tibial stimulation [the latter two including new rechargeable neurostimulators]) for the management of overactive bladder (OAB) were compared with best supportive care (BSC) using a previously published Markov model. Materials & methods: Cost–effectiveness was evaluated over a 15-year time horizon, and sensitivity analyses were performed using 2- and 5-year horizons. Discontinuation rates, resource utilization, and costs were derived from published sources. Results: Using Medicare and commercial costs over a 15-year time period, onabotulinumtoxinA 100U had incremental cost–effectiveness ratios (ICERs) gained of $39,591/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and $42,255/QALY, respectively, versus BSC, which were the lowest ICERs of all assessed treatments. The sensitivity analyses at 2- and 5-year horizons also showed onabotulinumtoxinA to be the most cost-effective of all assessed treatments versus BSC. Conclusion: OnabotulinumtoxinA 100U is currently the most cost-effective treatment for OAB.

Intra-rectal Injections of Botulinum Toxin Can Be a Long-term Treatment of Fecal Urge Incontinence

“…Notably, a recent prospective randomized trial comparing BoNT/A with SNS demonstrated better cost-effectiveness in favour of BoNT/A, with comparable e cacy at 5 years [20]. This aspect was further emphasized in a systematic review, which identi ed OnabotA/BOTOX® as the most cost-effective treatment among all available options for urge UI [21]. These ndings present intriguing prospects for future comparisons between BoNT/A and SNS in the context of FI.…”

Letter: Long-Term Cost Analysis of Third-Line Treatment Options for Overactive Bladder

“…In fact, a recent study published in the Journal of Comparative Research Effectiveness (albeit sponsored by Abbvie, the maker of Botox) utilized costs of $18,194 and $22,197 for the permanent implant for Medicare and commercial insurers, respectively. 2…”