Sender Herschorn1, Jameel Nazir2, Barbara Ramos3, Zalmai Hakimi4. 1. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 2. Astellas Pharma Europe Ltd, Chertsey, UK. 3. Astellas Pharma Canada, Markham, ON, Canada. 4. Astellas Pharma Europe B.V., Leiden, The Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This analysis compared the cost-effectiveness of once-daily regimens of mirabegron 50 mg and generic tolterodine ER 4 mg in a hypothetical cohort of previously treated patients with overactive bladder (OAB) in Canada. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to represent different health states according to OAB symptoms (frequency, incontinence), presence/absence of adverse events (AEs; dry mouth, constipation, blurred vision), and treatment status (on-treatment, discontinue treatment, restart previous treatment). The time horizon used was one year, with monthly transitions between health states. The model was populated using data from a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial of mirabegron that included tolterodine as an active comparator (SCORPIO), as well as other published literature and expert opinion. Cost-effectiveness was calculated from Canadian public payer (based on Quebec list prices) and societal perspectives. RESULTS: The incremental one-year cost per patient for mirabegron over tolterodine was $182 CAD and $157 CAD from the payer and societal perspectives, respectively. The incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain for mirabegron was 0.0066 when using EQ-5D health-state utilities. Mirabegron was cost-effective compared with tolterodine, from both payer and societal perspectives, and remained cost-effective vs. tolterodine across the majority of sensitivity analyses. The model was based on limited clinical trial evidence supplemented with expert opinion and assumptions; a select number of OAB symptoms, AEs, and direct and indirect medical costs associated with OAB; and a timeframe of only one year. CONCLUSIONS: From the payer and societal perspectives, the health economic model indicates that in Canada, mirabegron is a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with tolterodine, leading to improved health outcomes (QALYs) at an acceptable incremental cost.
INTRODUCTION: This analysis compared the cost-effectiveness of once-daily regimens of mirabegron 50 mg and generic tolterodine ER 4 mg in a hypothetical cohort of previously treated patients with overactive bladder (OAB) in Canada. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to represent different health states according to OAB symptoms (frequency, incontinence), presence/absence of adverse events (AEs; dry mouth, constipation, blurred vision), and treatment status (on-treatment, discontinue treatment, restart previous treatment). The time horizon used was one year, with monthly transitions between health states. The model was populated using data from a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial of mirabegron that included tolterodine as an active comparator (SCORPIO), as well as other published literature and expert opinion. Cost-effectiveness was calculated from Canadian public payer (based on Quebec list prices) and societal perspectives. RESULTS: The incremental one-year cost per patient for mirabegron over tolterodine was $182 CAD and $157 CAD from the payer and societal perspectives, respectively. The incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain for mirabegron was 0.0066 when using EQ-5D health-state utilities. Mirabegron was cost-effective compared with tolterodine, from both payer and societal perspectives, and remained cost-effective vs. tolterodine across the majority of sensitivity analyses. The model was based on limited clinical trial evidence supplemented with expert opinion and assumptions; a select number of OAB symptoms, AEs, and direct and indirect medical costs associated with OAB; and a timeframe of only one year. CONCLUSIONS: From the payer and societal perspectives, the health economic model indicates that in Canada, mirabegron is a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with tolterodine, leading to improved health outcomes (QALYs) at an acceptable incremental cost.
Authors: Christopher R Chapple; Linda Cardozo; Victor W Nitti; Emad Siddiqui; Martin C Michel Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2013-10-11 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Debra E Irwin; Ian Milsom; Steinar Hunskaar; Kate Reilly; Zoe Kopp; Sender Herschorn; Karin Coyne; Con Kelleher; Christian Hampel; Walter Artibani; Paul Abrams Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-10-02 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: W F Stewart; J B Van Rooyen; G W Cundiff; P Abrams; A R Herzog; R Corey; T L Hunt; A J Wein Journal: World J Urol Date: 2002-11-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Joshua S Benner; Michael B Nichol; Eric S Rovner; Zhanna Jumadilova; Jose Alvir; Mohamed Hussein; Kristina Fanning; Jeffrey N Trocio; Linda Brubaker Journal: BJU Int Date: 2009-11-12 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Zalmai Hakimi; Con Kelleher; Samuel Aballéa; Khaled Maman; Jameel Nazir; Colette Mankowski; Isaac Odeyemi Journal: J Mark Access Health Policy Date: 2018-03-20