Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Between Sacral Neuromodulation and OnabotulinumtoxinA for the Treatment of Refractory Overactive Bladder in Women: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Objective We summarized the evidence evaluating the cost-effectiveness of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) versus onabotulinumtoxinA (BONT/A) in the treatment of refractory overactive bladder (OAB) among women. Methods We searched PubMed Medline (1946–2019), EMBASE (1947–2019), Web of Science (1900–2019), Clinical Trials.gov, reviewed references of included studies, and Cochrane subsets of CDSR, DARE, CENTRAL, and NHSEED. We included cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses or decision analysis comparing SNM versus BONT/A in women with nonneurogenic refractory OAB. Primary outcomes included incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), reported as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), which were abstracted or calculated. Results Five studies met the inclusion criteria. Three studies were industry supported. Two studies of high quality found BONT/A to be dominant over SNM (ICER range of $415,571/QALY at 5 years and $236,370/QALY at 10 years). This trend was further supported by a third study of high quality that favored BONT/A because SNM was not cost-effective (ICER, $116,427/QALY at 2 years). In contrast, 2 other studies of lower quality found that SNM was cost-effective or dominant in comparison to BONT/A (ICER range, $3,717/QALY to €15,226/QALY at 10 years). In general, models were sensitive to treatment duration, intervention setting, and lacked robust data on long-term outcomes. Conclusions OnabotulinumtoxinA is more cost-effective for managing refractory OAB when compared with SNM. However, it remains unclear whether this finding holds true long term for what is considered a lifelong condition.