ECONOMIC EVALUATION ON THE USE OF OXYBUTYNIN, TOLTERODINE, AND SOLIFENACIN IN PATIENTS WITH HYPERACTIVE BLADDER
Author(s)
De Lago Acosta A1, Salinas G2, Idrovo J3, Zapata L4, Alanís A1, Rico I51Laboratorios Liomont, Mexico, DF, Mexico, 2Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez, México, DF, Mexico, 3National Institute of Public Health, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico, 4Guia Mark, Mexico, DF, Mexico, 5Guia Mark SA DE CV, Mexico, DF, Mexico
OBJECTIVES: Hyperactive Bladder (HB) is a common, debilitating condition with a considerable negative impact on quality of life. The cost-effectiveness (CE) of three medications was evaluated for the treatment of patients with Hyperactive Bladder from the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS) perspective. METHODS: CE analysis from the perspective of the service provider (IMSS). Since it is a chronic disease with different stages, a Markov model with monthly cycles in a 12-month temporal horizon was developed. Only direct medical costs were used in the analysis. Direct medical costs were estimated on a sample of patient files in two IMSS medical units. Criteria for inclusion was patients with more than 6 months of treatment. The effectiveness measurement was taken from literature and was defined as the percentage of patients that did not present symptoms of incontinence. Univariated and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The oxybutynin treatment reflected the lowest expected cost per patient treated for hyperactive bladder, US$545 (1 USD= 13.5MXN); followed by the solifenacin and tolterodine treatments, with a cost of US$680 and US$1,135, respectively. As for the effectiveness measurement, the percentage of patients that did not present incontinence within the temporal horizon of analysis was: with tolterodine 2.76%, with oxybutynin 7.11% and with solifenacin 7.46%. Therefore, cost effectiveness ratios interpreted as the cost per percentage point of patients that did not present HB are: oxybuynin US$77, solifenacin US$91 and tolterodine US$411. The incremental cost effectiveness analysis indicates that tolterodine is a dominated alternative and that oxybutynin and solifenacin are positioned within the efficiency line. Nonetheless, when conducting the probabilistic analysis, it was found that with US$411 available, a solifenacin treatment would be more cost effective for the institution. CONCLUSIONS: From an institutional perspective, solifenacine is a cost-effective alternative for treating patients with HB in the Mexican context.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2010-05, ISPOR 2010, Atlanta, GA, USA
Value in Health, Vol. 13, No. 3 (May 2010)
Code
PUK12
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis
Disease
Urinary/Kidney Disorders