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

Abstract

AIM\nTo 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).\n\n\nMETHODS\nA 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 Resource utilization, discontinuation rates and costs were derived from unpublished and published sources.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.\n\n\nRESULTS\nTreatment with onabotA 100U produced the largest gain in QALYs (7.179) and lowest estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio\xa0($32,680/QALY) of all assessed treatments compared with BSC.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nCompared with BSC, onabotA 100U was the most cost-effective treatment option for patients with refractory OAB.