Assessing the Value of Purewick™ System for the Management of Female Patients With Urinary Incontinence in the Nonacute Setting: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Author(s)
Carla Rognoni, PhD1, Vittoria Ardito, MSc1, Rosanna Tarricone, PhD2.
1Center for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CERGAS), SDA Bocconi School of Management, Milano, Italy, 2Social and Political Sciences, Bocconi University, Milano, Italy.
1Center for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CERGAS), SDA Bocconi School of Management, Milano, Italy, 2Social and Political Sciences, Bocconi University, Milano, Italy.
OBJECTIVES: Urinary incontinence (UI), often affecting women and older adults, is managed based on severity and care setting. The PureWick™ System is a new non-invasive device that uses low-pressure suction and an absorbent wick to collect urine into a sealed canister. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of this device compared to standard care (pads/diapers) for managing female UI in the United Kingdom (UK) in non-acute settings (nursing home or home care) from the payer perspective (NHS/Personal Social Services).
METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis model was developed over a one-year horizon for a hypothetical female cohort with UI. A systematic literature review was conducted to retrieve model parameters related to complication rates (urinary tract infections, dermatitis/moisture lesions, night falls), nursing time, environmental impact and quality of life. Healthcare resource utilization and costs were derived from published UK-specific data, including device acquisition costs, nursing time costs, and costs of managing complications.
RESULTS: In the nursing home setting, PureWick is dominant compared to pads/diapers with a mean annual cost per patient of £6,909 versus £7,274 and 0.7792 QALYs versus 0.7790 QALYs. In the home setting, PureWick is confirmed as dominant with a mean annual cost per patient of £8,578 versus £11,654 (same QALYs of the nursing home setting). In the nursing home setting, the main cost drivers are consumables (52%) for PureWick, and nursing activities (79%) for pads/diapers. In the home setting, nursing activities represent the largest cost component for both strategies (48% for PureWick and 93% for pads/diapers).
CONCLUSIONS: The choice of incontinence devices should be guided by clinical needs, balancing mobility, infection risk, and skin integrity. While pads/diapers remain common, external female catheters offer an innovative cost-saving alternative in select contexts. A multidisciplinary approach is key to ensuring safe, effective, and dignified care.
METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis model was developed over a one-year horizon for a hypothetical female cohort with UI. A systematic literature review was conducted to retrieve model parameters related to complication rates (urinary tract infections, dermatitis/moisture lesions, night falls), nursing time, environmental impact and quality of life. Healthcare resource utilization and costs were derived from published UK-specific data, including device acquisition costs, nursing time costs, and costs of managing complications.
RESULTS: In the nursing home setting, PureWick is dominant compared to pads/diapers with a mean annual cost per patient of £6,909 versus £7,274 and 0.7792 QALYs versus 0.7790 QALYs. In the home setting, PureWick is confirmed as dominant with a mean annual cost per patient of £8,578 versus £11,654 (same QALYs of the nursing home setting). In the nursing home setting, the main cost drivers are consumables (52%) for PureWick, and nursing activities (79%) for pads/diapers. In the home setting, nursing activities represent the largest cost component for both strategies (48% for PureWick and 93% for pads/diapers).
CONCLUSIONS: The choice of incontinence devices should be guided by clinical needs, balancing mobility, infection risk, and skin integrity. While pads/diapers remain common, external female catheters offer an innovative cost-saving alternative in select contexts. A multidisciplinary approach is key to ensuring safe, effective, and dignified care.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
EE64
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Disease
Urinary/Kidney Disorders