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.