Literature DB >> 24035322

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the surgical treatment of female urinary incontinence using slings and meshes.

Manuel F Montesino-Semper1, Jesus M Jimenez-Calvo, Juan M Cabases, Eduardo Sanchez-Iriso, Antonio Hualde-Alfaro, Diego García-García.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of the surgical treatment of female urinary incontinence using suburethral slings and prolapse meshes compared with therapeutic abstention. STUDY
DESIGN: An economic analysis was performed on 69 women receiving surgical treatment for urinary incontinence using suburethral slings and prolapse meshes. To calculate the procedure's cost-effectiveness, an incremental analysis up to one year was performed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The costs were calculated using a cost-by-process model. Answers to the health-related quality of life questionnaires EQ-5D (generic) and International Consultation Incontinence Questionnaire Short-form (specific) were collected before the operation and as well as one month and one year post-operation to calculate the utility, using quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and the effectiveness, respectively. To complete the economic evaluation, we derived confidence ellipses and acceptability curves. The analysis was conducted for the entire sample and also for each type of urinary incontinence.
RESULTS: In total, 45 women presented with stress incontinence, 15 with mixed incontinence and 9 with incontinence associated with prolapse. The average cost per patient at one year post-operation was 1220 €. The QALY achieved at one year was 0.046. The results reveal an ICER at one year of 26,288 €/QALY, which is below the cost-effectiveness threshold considered acceptable, and this value was lower for stress incontinence (21,191 €/QALY). The cost-effectiveness was 106.5 €/International Consultation Incontinence Questionnaire Short-form unit.
CONCLUSION: Surgery for female urinary incontinence using slings is cost-effective compared with abstention in our public health environment.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost-effectiveness analysis; Cost-utility analysis; Female urinary incontinence; QALY; Surgical treatment

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24035322     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.08.035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol        ISSN: 0301-2115            Impact factor:   2.435


  5 in total

1.  Valsalva leak point pressure-associated Q-tip angle and simple female stress urinary incontinence symptoms.

Authors:  Yan Chen; Jian Guo Wen; Hong Shen; Yu Tao Lv; Yan Wang; Qing Wei Wang; Yrjö T Konttinen
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 2.370

2.  Mobile App for Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Malin Sjöström; Lars Lindholm; Eva Samuelsson
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2017-05-08       Impact factor: 5.428

3.  Surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review of economic evidence.

Authors:  Mehdi Javanbakht; Eoin Moloney; Miriam Brazzelli; Sheila Wallace; Muhammad Imran Omar; Ash Monga; Lucky Saraswat; Phil Mackie; Mari Imamura; Jemma Hudson; Michal Shimonovich; Graeme MacLennan; Luke Vale; Dawn Craig
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2020-04-20

4.  Heterogeneity of cost estimates in health economic evaluation research. A systematic review of stress urinary incontinence studies.

Authors:  Sandra Zwolsman; Arnoud Kastelein; Joost Daams; Jan-Paul Roovers; B C Opmeer
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-02-04       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Cost-effectiveness of behavioral and pelvic floor muscle therapy combined with midurethral sling surgery vs surgery alone among women with mixed urinary incontinence: results of the Effects of Surgical Treatment Enhanced With Exercise for Mixed Urinary Incontinence randomized trial.

Authors:  Heidi S Harvie; Vivian W Sung; Simon J Neuwahl; Amanda A Honeycutt; Isuzu Meyer; Christopher J Chermansky; Shawn Menefee; Whitney K Hendrickson; Gena C Dunivan; Donna Mazloomdoost; Sarah J Bass; Marie G Gantz
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 8.661

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.