Jonathan P Shepherd1, Charelle M Carter-Brooks2, Christopher Chermanksy2. 1. Department of Ob/Gyn, Trinity Health Of New England, 114 Woodland St, Hartford, CT, 06105, USA. Jonathan.Shepherd@stfranciscare.org. 2. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: To determine if Onabotulinumtoxin A (Botox®) should be offered as a first-line therapy for the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB), even before prescribing anticholinergics. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis modeling the following clinical options: no treatment, non-selective anticholinergics, selective anticholinergics, and Botox®. The model timeframe was 2 years to allow Botox® reinjection and discontinuation of anticholinergics. Multiple efficacy levels included response improvement by < 50%, 50%, 75%, and 100%. Botox® reinjection was allowed at 6 months if < 50% efficacy. Botox® complications and anticholinergic side effects were noted. We modeled up to one medication switch. No crossover from Botox® to anticholinergics or vice versa was allowed, and failures remained with refractory untreated overactive bladder. Medical literature data were used for model parameter values. Costs are 2016 $US. RESULTS: Botox® costs more than non-selective anticholinergics and less than selective anticholinergics in models with and without refractory overactive bladder costs. Botox® had the highest effectiveness (1.763 quality-adjusted life years). Using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, Botox® was found to be cost-effective in models with and without refractory costs ($12,428.75 and $14,437.01, respectively). In both models, Botox® cost less and was more effective than selective anticholinergics, which were "dominated." Over 2 years, subjects averaged 15.6 and 14.3 months on selective and non-selective anticholinergics, respectively, and patients averaged 2.2 Botox® injections. Model results were unchanged with variation of input parameter estimates in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Botox® is a cost-effective therapy for overactive bladder and should be further explored as a first-line option in the treatment paradigm.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: To determine if Onabotulinumtoxin A (Botox®) should be offered as a first-line therapy for the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB), even before prescribing anticholinergics. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis modeling the following clinical options: no treatment, non-selective anticholinergics, selective anticholinergics, and Botox®. The model timeframe was 2 years to allow Botox® reinjection and discontinuation of anticholinergics. Multiple efficacy levels included response improvement by < 50%, 50%, 75%, and 100%. Botox® reinjection was allowed at 6 months if < 50% efficacy. Botox® complications and anticholinergic side effects were noted. We modeled up to one medication switch. No crossover from Botox® to anticholinergics or vice versa was allowed, and failures remained with refractory untreated overactive bladder. Medical literature data were used for model parameter values. Costs are 2016 $US. RESULTS: Botox® costs more than non-selective anticholinergics and less than selective anticholinergics in models with and without refractory overactive bladder costs. Botox® had the highest effectiveness (1.763 quality-adjusted life years). Using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, Botox® was found to be cost-effective in models with and without refractory costs ($12,428.75 and $14,437.01, respectively). In both models, Botox® cost less and was more effective than selective anticholinergics, which were "dominated." Over 2 years, subjects averaged 15.6 and 14.3 months on selective and non-selective anticholinergics, respectively, and patients averaged 2.2 Botox® injections. Model results were unchanged with variation of input parameter estimates in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Botox® is a cost-effective therapy for overactive bladder and should be further explored as a first-line option in the treatment paradigm.
Authors: Karen L Noblett; Roger R Dmochowski; Sandip P Vasavada; Abigail M Garner; Shan Liu; Jan B Pietzsch Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Cindy L Amundsen; Holly E Richter; Shawn A Menefee; Yuko M Komesu; Lily A Arya; W Thomas Gregory; Deborah L Myers; Halina M Zyczynski; Sandip Vasavada; Tracy L Nolen; Dennis Wallace; Susan F Meikle Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kathryn L Burgio; Stephen R Kraus; Shawn Menefee; Diane Borello-France; Marlene Corton; Harry W Johnson; Veronica Mallett; Peggy Norton; Mary P FitzGerald; Kimberly J Dandreo; Holly E Richter; Thomas Rozanski; Michael Albo; Halina M Zyczynski; Gary E Lemack; Toby C Chai; Salil Khandwala; Jan Baker; Linda Brubaker; Anne M Stoddard; Patricia S Goode; Betsy Nielsen-Omeis; Charles W Nager; Kimberly Kenton; Sharon L Tennstedt; John W Kusek; T Debuene Chang; Leroy M Nyberg; William Steers Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-08-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: M François; T Hanslik; B Dervaux; Y Le Strat; C Souty; S Vaux; S Maugat; C Rondet; M Sarazin; B Heym; B Coignard; L Rossignol Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 2.655