The cost-effectiveness of dextranomer/hyaluronic acid copolymer for the management of vesicoureteral reflux. 1: substitution for surgical management.

PURPOSE: We examined the cost-effectiveness of dextranomer/hyaluronic acid copolymer injection in patients who would otherwise undergo ureteral reimplantation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A model for managing vesicoureteral reflux has previously been created. We now update the model to compare the costs of treating vesicoureteral reflux using standard methods (ie ureteral reimplantation after failed medical therapy) with the costs of dextranomer/hyaluronic acid injection.
RESULTS: In the first scenario created dextranomer/hyaluronic acid injection is substituted for ureteral reimplantation when surgical intervention would be performed for treatment of breakthrough infection or failure of the reflux to resolve. For dextranomer/hyaluronic acid injection to have equal cost-effectiveness compared to ureteral reimplantation in this scenario success rates for dextranomer/hyaluronic acid injection would need to be 57.8% per ureter for patients with unilateral reflux and 75.3% per ureter for patients with bilateral reflux. However, if increasing grades of reflux require increasing volumes of dextranomer/hyaluronic acid, success rates would need to be 72.5% for patients with unilateral reflux and 93.8% for patients with bilateral reflux. In the second scenario created dextranomer/hyaluronic acid injection is repeated if it fails to resolve the reflux after the first injection. Success rates to obtain equal cost-effectiveness for the repeat dextranomer/hyaluronic acid injection would need to be 0%, 11.4% and 60.3% in patients with unilateral reflux if the respective success rates of the initial injection were 85%, 70% and 55%. Success rates for the second dextranomer/hyaluronic acid injection would need to be 0%, 29.1% and 76.7% per ureter in patients with bilateral reflux if the respective success rates of the initial injection were 85%, 70% and 55%. If increasing volumes of dextranomer/hyaluronic acid were required for increasing grades of reflux, a second dextranomer/hyaluronic acid injection would not be a viable option.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on our results, dextranomer/hyaluronic acid injection may be more cost-effective than ureteral reimplantation for children who meet standard criteria for surgical therapy, especially for lower grades of reflux. If increasing grades of reflux require an increased volume of dextranomer/hyaluronic acid, then injection would likely be cost-effective only for grades I and II unilateral and bilateral reflux, and perhaps unilateral grade III reflux.