SACRAL NERVE MODULATION (SNM) FOR THE TREATMENT OF IDIOPATHIC REFRACTORY OVERACTIVE BLADDER- COST-EFFECTIVE IN THE UK COMPARED TO OPTIMAL MEDICAL THERAPY, BOTULINUM TOXIN A (BONT-A) AND PERCUTANEOUS TIBIAL NERVE STIMULATION (PTNS)

Author(s)

Walleser S1, Betts C2, Hallas N3, Ockrim J41Medtronic International Trading Sarl, Tolochenaz, Switzerland, Switzerland, 2Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, United Kingdom, 3Medtronic Limited, Watford, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom, 4University College London Hospitals, London, London, United Kingdom

OBJECTIVES: Sacral Nerve Modulation (SNM) is a minimally-invasive technology indicated for overactive bladder (OAB). SNM efficacy has been widely demonstrated yet its cost-effectiveness in the UK is unknown. The cost-effectiveness of SNM in patients with refractory idiopathic OAB with urinary incontinence (OAB-wet) was compared to optimal medical therapy (OMT), Botulinum Toxin A (BoNT-A) and PTNS from the UK NHS perspective. METHODS: A published Spanish Markov model was adapted to current UK practice based on existing data and clinical expert advice. Treatment success was defined as >50% improvement in OAB-wet symptoms. Health care resource use included pre-,peri-, and post-procedure; drugs; follow-ups and adverse events. Both SNM using testing with tined-lead (SNM-tined-lead) and PNE (SNM-PNE) were evaluated. Incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratios (ICER;costs per quality-adjusted-life-year)were calculated for SNM vs. OMT and vs. BoNT-A (10yrs), and SNM vs, PTNS (5yrs); with uni-variate sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: At 10 years, the cumulative costs of SNM-tined-lead, SNM-PNE, BoNT-A and OMT were £22,052, £19,952, £18,477, £11,918, respectively; PTNS 5-year cumulative costs were £17,915.The QALYs for SNM-tined-lead, SNM-PNE, BoNT-A and OMT were 6.82, 6.64, 6.35 and 5.45 (10yrs), respectively, and 3.44 for PTNS (5yrs). ICERs were £7,608 and £7,356 for SNM-tined-lead vs. BoNT-A, and vs OMT (10yrs), respectively; SNM-tined-lead and SNM-PNE were dominant (less costly and more effective) compared to PTNS (5 years). SNM- tined-lead was cost-effective vs.SNM-PNE. ICERs were most sensitive to BoNT-A efficacy and costs, but results were generally robust. CONCLUSIONS: SNM in patients with OAB-wet provides additional quality of life improvement with higher initial costs for SNM that are offset by a reduction in follow-up costs over time. This produces ICERs that are clearly below the threshold generally considered for cost-effectiveness in the UK. SNM represents value for money compared to OMT, BoNT-A and PTNS, and may be considered the preferred treatment option in the UK.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2012-11, ISPOR Europe 2012, Berlin, Germany

Value in Health, Vol. 15, No. 7 (November 2012)

Code

PMD55

Topic

Economic Evaluation

Topic Subcategory

Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis

Disease

Urinary/Kidney Disorders

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×