These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Cost effectiveness analysis of fesoterodine compared to mirabegron in first-line therapy setting for overactive bladder with urge urinary incontinence, from the Spanish National Health System perspective.
    Author: Angulo JC, Sánchez-Ballester F, Peral C, Rejas J, Ramos J, Snedecor SJ, Sudharshan L, Liu S, Luo X.
    Journal: Actas Urol Esp; 2016 Oct; 40(8):513-22. PubMed ID: 26988624.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatment of Overactive Bladder (OAB) with fesoterodine relative to mirabegron, from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A decision tree model was developed to represent a typical clinical process of 52-week of treatment for an OAB patient with urge urinary incontinence (UUI) initiating first-line therapy with fesoterodine 4mg, including optional titration to 8mg, vs.mirabegron 50mg. Efficacy data were obtained from a Bayesian indirect treatment meta-analysis. Patients with UUI of less than one episode/day were defined as treatment responder and persistence was assessed at weeks 4, 12 and 24. At week 12, non-responders discontinued treatment permanently. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated based on time spent in responder and non-responder states. OAB-related drug and medical care costs including physician visits, laboratory tests, incontinence pads, and comorbidities (fracture, skin infection, urinary tract infections and depression) were modeled and expressed in €2015. RESULTS: At week 52, the percentage of responders was 20.8% for patients starting on fesoterodine 4mg who optionally titrated to 8mg and 19.4% for patients treated with mirabegron. QALYs were slightly higher with fesoterodine than mirabegron (0.7703vs. 0.7668, difference=0.0035). Fesoterodine treatment also had slightly higher total costs than mirabegron (3,296€vs. 3,217, difference=79€), resulting in a cost of 22,523/QALY€ gained for fesoterodine versus mirabegron. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the slight advantage of fesoterodine with a 61.1% probability of being cost-effective at the 30,000€ willingness-to-pay for 1QALY threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Given the relatively small 1-year cost difference between the two treatments, fesoterodine can be considered a cost-effective option relative to mirabegron for the first-line management of OAB with UUI in Spain.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]