Economic impact of using fesoterodine for the treatment of overactive bladder with urge urinary incontinence in a vulnerable elderly population in the United States

Objectives:

To assess the costs of treating overactive bladder (OAB) with fesoterodine compared to no OAB pharmacotherapy among vulnerable elderly from the US payer perspective.

Methods:

A decision analytic cost model was developed to estimate the 52-week costs of a cohort of vulnerable elderly with OAB initiating treatment with fesoterodine or no OAB pharmacotherapy. Vulnerable elderly OAB patients were defined as those aged ≥65 years with self-reported urge urinary incontinence (UUI) symptoms for ≥3 months, 2–15 UUI episodes/day, and at risk of deteriorating health by a score of ≥3 on the Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES)-13. Patients were evaluated for fesoterodine treatment response (defined as no UUI episodes) and persistence at weeks 12, 26, and 52. The model included a hypothetical health plan with 100,000 elderly members. A total of 7096 vulnerable elderly subjects were identified as the model target population based on the percentage of vulnerable elderly and annual prevalence of OAB among vulnerable elderly. OAB-related costs included fesoterodine drug acquisition costs, healthcare resource use (inpatient hospitalization, outpatient visits, and physician office visits), and OAB-related co-morbidities (falls/fractures, urinary tract infections, depression, and nursing home admissions). All costs were inflated to 2013 US$ using the medical care component of the consumer price index (CPI).

Results:

When 7096 vulnerable elderly OAB patients were treated with fesoterodine, US healthcare payers could save $11,463,981 per year, or $1616 per patient vs no OAB pharmacotherapy. Univariate one-way sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of the findings and showed results were most sensitive to changes in fesoterodine efficacy followed by annual costs of inpatient hospitalization.

Conclusions:

From a US payer perspective, treating vulnerable elderly OAB patients with fesoterodine was cost-saving compared to no OAB pharmacotherapy.     

The cost-effectiveness of solifenacin vs. trospium in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder in the German National Health Service

Objective:

To carry out a cost–utility analysis comparing initial treatment of patients with overactive bladder (OAB) with solifenacin 5?mg/day versus either trospium 20?mg twice a day or trospium 60?mg/day from the perspective of the German National Health Service.

Methods:

A decision analytic model with a 3 month cycle was developed to follow a cohort of OAB patients treated with either solifenacin or trospium during a 1 year period. Costs and utilities were accumulated as patients transitioned through the four cycles in the model. Some of the solifenacin patients were titrated from 5?mg to 10?mg/day at 3 months. Utility values were obtained from the published literature and pad use was based on a US resource utilization study. Adherence rates for individual treatments were derived from a United Kingdom general practitioner database review. The change in the mean number of urgency urinary incontinence episodes/day from after 12 weeks was the main outcome measure. Baseline effectiveness values for solifenacin and trospium were calculated using the Poisson distribution. Patients who failed second-line therapy were referred to a specialist visit. Results were expressed in terms of incremental cost–utility ratios.

Results:

Total annual costs for solifenacin, trospium 20?mg and trospium 60?mg were €970.01, €860.05 and €875.05 respectively. Drug use represented 43%, 28% and 29% of total costs and pad use varied between 45% and 57%. Differences between cumulative utilities were small but favored solifenacin (0.6857 vs. 0.6802 to 0.6800). The baseline incremental cost–effectiveness ratio ranged from €16,657 to €19,893 per QALY.

Limitations:

The difference in cumulative utility favoring solifenacin was small (0.0055–0.0057 QALYs). A small absolute change in the cumulative utilities can have a marked impact on the overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and care should be taken when interpreting the results.

Conclusion:

Solifenacin would appear to be cost-effective with an ICER of no more than €20,000/QALY. However, small differences in utility between the alternatives means that the results are sensitive to adjustments in the values of the assigned utilities, effectiveness and discontinuation rates.     

Clinical and economic impact of mirabegron compared with antimuscarinics for the treatment of overactive bladder in Canada

Background: The β₃-adrenoceptor agonist, mirabegron, and antimuscarinic agents provide similar efficacy for the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB), but mirabegron appears to be associated with better persistence, perhaps due to an absence of anticholinergic side-effects. This study estimated the expected costs associated with the management of OAB in Canada from a societal perspective by utilizing real-world evidence.

Methods: An economic model with monthly cycles and a 1-year time horizon was developed to depict a treatment pathway for a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients with OAB. At model entry, patients receive mirabegron or an antimuscarinic. Patients who do not persist may switch treatment, undergo a minimally invasive procedure, or remain symptomatic (uncontrolled). The model includes direct costs (e.g. physician visits) and indirect costs (e.g. lost productivity). A one-way univariate sensitivity analysis assessed a ±20% variation in each of the key model inputs.

Results: At 1 year, a greater proportion of patients persisted on treatment with mirabegron compared with antimuscarinics (33% vs 15–23%), and a smaller proportion switched treatment (17% vs 20–22%). The number of healthcare visits (292 vs 299–304), pads used (74,098 vs 77,878–81,669), and work hours lost (4,497 vs 5,372–6,249) were all lower for mirabegron vs antimuscarinics. The estimated total annual cost of treatment per patient with mirabegron was $2,127.46 Canadian dollars (CAD) ($5.82 CAD/day) compared with $2,150.20–$2,496.69 CAD ($5.89–$6.84 CAD/day) for antimuscarinics. The one-way sensitivity analysis indicated the results are robust.

Conclusions: Improved persistence observed in routine clinical practice with mirabegron appears to translate into benefits of reduced healthcare resource use, and lower direct and indirect costs of treatment compared with antimuscarinics. Overall, these data suggest that mirabegron may offer clinical and economic benefits for the management of patients with OAB in Canada.