Cost effectiveness of mirabegron compared with tolterodine extended release for the treatment of adults with overactive bladder in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Overactive bladder (OAB) is highly prevalent and is associated with considerable morbidity and reduced health-related quality of life. ß3-adrenergic receptor (ß3-AR) stimulation is a novel alternative to antimuscarinic therapy for OAB. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this analysis was to assess the cost effectiveness of the ß3-AR agonist mirabegron relative to tolterodine extended release (ER) in patients with OAB from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate the management, course of disease, and effect of complications in OAB patients over a period of 5 years. Transition probabilities for symptom severity levels and probabilities of adverse events were estimated from the results of the randomised, double-blind SCORPIO trial in 1,987 patients with OAB. Other model inputs were derived from the literature and on assumptions based on clinical experience. RESULTS: Total 5-year costs per patient were £1,645.62 for mirabegron 50 mg/day and £1,607.75 for tolterodine ER 4 mg/day. Mirabegron was associated with a gain of 0.009 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with an additional cost of £37.88. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £4,386/QALY gained. In deterministic sensitivity analyses in the general OAB population and several subgroups, ICERs remained below the generally accepted willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £20,000/QALY gained. The probability of mirabegron 50 mg being cost effective relative to tolterodine ER 4 mg was 89.4 % at the same WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Mirabegron 50 mg/day is likely to be cost effective compared with tolterodine ER 4 mg/day for adult patients with OAB from a UK NHS perspective.

Cost effectiveness of fesoterodine and tolterodine for the treatment of overactive bladder with urge urinary incontinence in Spain and Finland.

BACKGROUND: Overactive bladder is a prevalent condition worldwide that is associated with a considerable burden, both on the patient and on society. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess the economic value of fesoterodine compared with tolterodine extended release (ER) for the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB) with urge urinary incontinence (UUI) in Spain and Finland. METHODS: A decision-tree economic model estimated the 52-week costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of OAB/UUI patients initiating treatment with fesoterodine 4 mg/day or tolterodine ER. Individuals were evaluated for treatment response (UUI fewer than one episode/day) and persistence at weeks 4, 12, and 24. Titration from fesoterodine 4 mg/day to 8 mg/day was permitted at week 4. At week 12, non-responders discontinued treatment permanently. Efficacy, discontinuation, and utility data were derived from four clinical trials of fesoterodine. OAB-related costs, including physician visits, laboratory tests, incontinence pads, and comorbidities (fracture, skin infection, urinary tract infections, depression, and nursing home) were also included. RESULTS: A total of 19.5 % and 18.0 % of fesoterodine and tolterodine ER patients remained on treatment until week 52, respectively. QALYs were higher with fesoterodine than tolterodine ER (0.762 vs. 0.760). In Spain, fesoterodine treatment had higher total costs than (generic) tolterodine ER (€6,697 vs. 6,597), resulting in a cost of €15,633/QALY gained. In Finland, fesoterodine was cost saving relative to (non-generic) tolterodine ER (€7,885 vs. 8,024). Sensitivity analysis confirmed that these findings were robust to the expected price decrease for generic tolterodine ER in Finland. CONCLUSION: Fesoterodine is cost effective or cost saving relative to tolterodine ER for the treatment of OAB with UUI in two European countries. Payers and prescribers should consider a broad scope of costs to make informed cost-conscious choices of antimuscarinic treatment.

Health economics perspective of fesoterodine, tolterodine or solifenacin as first-time therapy for overactive bladder syndrome in the primary care setting in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Overactive bladder (OAB) is associated with high healthcare costs, which may be partially driven by drug treatment. There is little comparative data on antimuscarinic drugs with respect to resource use and costs. This study was conducted to address this gap and the growing need for naturalistic studies comparing health economics outcomes in adult patients with OAB syndrome initiating treatment with different antimuscarinic drugs in a primary care setting in Spain. METHODS: Medical records from the databases of primary healthcare centres in three locations in Spain were assessed retrospectively. Men and women ≥18 years of age who initiated treatment with fesoterodine, tolterodine or solifenacin for OAB between 2008 and 2010 were followed for 52 weeks. Healthcare resource utilization and related costs in the Spanish National Health System were compared. Comparisons among drugs were made using multivariate general linear models adjusted for location, age, sex, time since diagnosis, Charlson comorbidity index, and medication possession ratio. RESULTS: A total of 1,971 medical records of patients (58.3% women; mean age, 70.1 [SD:10.6] years) initiating treatment with fesoterodine (n = 302), solifenacin (n = 952) or tolterodine (n = 717) were examined. Annual mean cost per patient was €1798 (95% CI: €1745; €1848). Adjusted mean (95% bootstrap CI) healthcare costs were significantly lower in patients receiving fesoterodine (€1639 [1542; 1725]) compared with solifenacin (€1780 [€1699; €1854], P = 0.022) or tolterodine (€1893 [€1815; €1969], P = 0.001). Cost differences occurred because of significantly fewer medical visits, and less use of absorbent products and OAB-related concomitant medication in the fesoterodine group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with solifenacin and tolterodine, fesoterodine was a cost-saving therapy for treatment of OAB in the primary care setting in Spain.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of solifenacin versus oxybutynin immediate-release in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: To carry out a cost-utility analysis comparing initial treatment with solifenacin 5 mg/day vs oxybutynin immediate-release (IR) 15 mg/day for the treatment of patients with overactive bladder (OAB) from the perspective of the U.K. National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: A Markov model with six health states was developed to follow a cohort of OAB patients treated with either solifenacin or oxybutynin during a 1-year period. Costs and utilities were accumulated as patients transited through the health states in the model and a drop-out state. Some of the solifenacin patients were titrated from 5 mg to 10 mg/day at 8 weeks. A proportion of drop-out patients were assumed to continue treatment with tolterodine ER. Utility values were obtained from a Swedish study and pad use was based on a multinational clinical trial. Adherence rates for individual treatments were derived from a U.K. database study. For pad use and utility values, the drop-out state was split between those patients who were no longer receiving treatment and those on second-line therapy. Patients on second-line therapy who drop-out were referred for a specialist visit. Results were expressed in terms of incremental cost-utility ratios. RESULTS: Total annual costs for solifenacin and oxybutynin were £504.30 and £364.19, respectively. First-line drug use represents 49% and 4% of costs and pad use represent 23% and 40% of costs for solifenacin and oxybutynin, respectively. Differences between cumulative utilities were small but were greater for solifenacin (0.7020 vs. 0.6907). The baseline incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £12,309/QALY. CONCLUSION: Under the baseline assumptions, solifenacin would appear to be cost-effective with an incremental cost-utility of less than £20,000/QALY. However, small differences in utility between the alternatives and the large number of drop-outs means that the results are sensitive to small adjustments in the values of utilities assigned to the drop-out state.

Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation versus extended release tolterodine for overactive bladder.

PURPOSE: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation vs extended release tolterodine for the treatment of overactive bladder. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 1-year time frame cost-effectiveness model from a societal perspective was developed by comparing medical costs and quality of life determined by improved continence and therapy side effects of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation and tolterodine ER. Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation therapy consisted of 12 sessions for 3 months followed by maintenance therapy. Significant side effects of both strategies can result in reduced quality of life or therapy termination. Parameter estimates included utilities of improved urinary incontinence (0.92) and continued urinary incontinence (0.73), reduction in quality of life from side effects (5%), cost of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation per session ($203) and cost of tolterodine ER per month ($150). Our primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, defined as the marginal cost per quality adjusted life-years gained. Less than $50,000 per quality adjusted life-year gained was considered cost-effective. The uncertainty of input parameters was addressed by 1-way sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulation to assess the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation added significant cost to the management of overactive bladder with modest improvement in quality of life. For every 100 patients treated with percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation the costs increased by $303,480 and resulted in an additional 4.3 quality adjusted life-years gained compared to tolterodine ER. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $70,754 per quality adjusted life-year gained. In the Monte Carlo analysis percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation was cost-effective only 21% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation was not cost-effective for treating overactive bladder vs tolterodine ER under a wide range of clinical circumstances.

The cost-effectiveness of solifenacin vs fesoterodine, oxybutynin immediate-release, propiverine, tolterodine extended-release and tolterodine immediate-release in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder in the UK National Health Service.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of solifenacin vs other antimuscarinic strategies commonly used in UK clinical practice, based on the results of a recent published review. METHODS: Overactive bladder (OAB) syndrome is characterized by symptoms of urgency, frequency, incontinence and nocturia. Pharmacological treatment comprises oral antimuscarinic agents, which are divided into older-generation treatments, including oxybutynin, and new-generation treatments, comprising solifenacin, tolterodine, darifenacin and fesoterodine. The latter have reduced central nervous system penetration and have better selectivity for the M3 subclass of acetylcholine receptors, resulting in improved tolerability. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of antimuscarinics provided an opportunity for an economic evaluation of these agents using a rigorous assessment of efficacy. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken using a 1-year decision-tree model. Treatment success was defined separately for urgency, frequency and incontinence, with efficacy data taken from the recent review. Treatment persistence rates were taken from the Information Management System database. Utility values for the calculation of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were taken from published sources. The analysis included costs directly associated with treatment for OAB, i.e. antimuscarinic therapy, consultations with general practitioners, and outpatient contacts. Resource use was based on expert opinion. Costs were reported at 2007/2008 prices. Extensive deterministic and probabilistic analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the base-case results. RESULTS: Solifenacin was associated with the highest QALY gains (per 1000 patients) for all three outcomes of interest, i.e. urgency (712.3), frequency (723.1) and incontinence (695.0). Solifenacin was dominant relative to fesoterodine, tolterodine extended-release (ER) and tolterodine immediate-release (IR), and cost-effective relative to propiverine ER for urgency, frequency and incontinence. Solifenacin was not found to be cost-effective relative to oxybutynin IR for the frequency and incontinence outcomes, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of > pound30,000/QALY threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Solifenacin provided the greatest clinical benefit and associated QALYs for all three outcomes of interest across all therapies considered, and to be either dominant or cost-effective relative to all other new-generation agents, but not cost-effective relative to oxybutynin for frequency and incontinence.

Anticholinergic drug use for overactive bladder in Sweden: a nationwide pharmacoepidemiological study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Nationwide use and costs of anticholinergic drug for overactive bladder are unknown. METHODS: We performed a nationwide study based on the Swedish Register on Prescribed Pharmaceuticals. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2007, there was a 68.8% increase in dispensed anticholinergic drugs in a population of 9 million. More than 93 million DDDs (calculated average maintenance dose per day) of anticholinergic drugs were dispensed corresponding to an overall DDD/TID (DDD per 1,000 inhabitants per day) of 3.5 per 1,000 persons per year. Approximately two thirds of anticholinergic drugs were prescribed to women, regardless of drug type. In 2007, the cost for anticholinergic drugs was 22 million of which tolterodine comprised 70.8%. Solifenacin and darifenacin steadily increased their DDD/TIDs after market introduction. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide study, there was a 70% increased rate of expedited prescriptions of anticholinergic drugs for the treatment of overactive bladder in a relatively stable population.

Solifenacin in the treatment of overactive bladder syndrome in Italian patients: pharmacoeconomic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the pharmacoeconomic performance of treatment with solifenacin, a new antimuscarinic with selectivity for the bladder, when compared to tolterodine and placebo, in Italian patients with overactive bladder (OAB). METHODS: The evaluation was performed using a Markov model. The time horizon of the simulation was 52 weeks, with 1-week cycles. The model simulated outcomes and costs of the treatment with solifenacin (5 mg/day), tolterodine ER (4 mg/day) and no treatment in a cohort representative of the Italian population with OAB. The analysis was conducted mainly from the perspective of the patient, since drugs for the treatment of OAB are not included in the Italian reimbursement list. A supplementary scenario explored the consequences of a hypothetical reimbursement decision by the Italian Health Service to reimburse half of the current retail price in incontinent and responding OAB patients only. RESULTS: Both treatments produced a reduction in symptoms and improvement in patients' quality of life, with an cost increase of about euro 540-640/patient/year with solifenacin and euro 680-780/patient/year with tolterodine. In a cost/utility analysis, solifenacin dominated tolterodine as it resulted in both more effective and less costly treatment; the cost/utility ratio with respect to no treatment was in the range euro 7,600-18,600/Quality-adjusted life year. The overall expenditure of the hypothesised reimbursement decision was estimated to be about 23 million euros, with a cost/utility ratio of about euro 600-2,400/Quality-adjusted life year, indicating an efficient allocation of health resources. CONCLUSIONS: While both tolterodine and solifenacin appear to be cost/effective in Italy, the latter has proven to be superior.

A cost-utility analysis of once daily solifenacin compared to tolterodine in the treatment of overactive bladder syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-utility of solifenacin, a new generation antimuscarinic, compared with tolterodine in the treatment of overactive bladder syndrome (OAB), from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A 1-year Markov model was constructed using data from a 12-week, randomised, double-blind study that compared flexible dosing with solifenacin (5 mg and 10 mg) with tolterodine (IR 2 mg bd/ER 4 mg) in adults with OAB. The model incorporated five discrete health states that were based on disease severity (micturitions/day and incontinence episodes/day). A 'drop out' state was also used in the model to account for patients that discontinued treatment in the first year. UK-specific costs for drug treatment and pad use as well as utilities were assigned to each health state. RESULTS: Solifenacin was a less costly and more effective treatment strategy compared with tolterodine. During the course of 1 year, the estimated cost per patient was pound509 for patients treated with solifenacin and pound526 for those given tolterodine, a cost saving of pound17 per patient. Treatment with solifenacin was also associated with a small incremental gain of 0.004 quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) over tolterodine. Sensitivity analysis suggests that the incremental cost effectiveness of solifenacin relative to tolterodine does not appear to exceed pound30 000/QALY with even large variations in key model parameters. CONCLUSION: Flexible dosing with solifenacin is likely to be cost-effective versus tolterodine in the treatment of OAB. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.

Impact of Medicare changes in pharmacy reimbursement on patient care: two case reports.

PURPOSE: Two case reports illustrate the impact of changes in pharmacy reimbursement associated with the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act (MMA) on patient care. SUMMARY: The Medicare Part D benefit is complex and difficult for patients to understand. A patient's personal financial situation and quality of life issues may enter into decisions about enrolling in Part D and the use of drug therapy. Local coverage decisions by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services can limit access to drug therapy and raise ethical dilemmas. CONCLUSION: Changes in pharmacy reimbursement associated with MMA has the potential to markedly impact patient care and outcomes.

Retrospective evaluation of outcomes in patients with overactive bladder receiving tolterodine versus oxybutynin.

PURPOSE: The frequency, relative risk, resource utilization, and costs related to comorbidities associated with overactive bladder (OAB) were studied. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients with OAB who initiated treatment with tolterodine extended release (ER), oxybutynin ER, or oxybutynin immediate release (IR) between January 2001 and December 2002 was conducted to evaluate the frequency, relative risk, resource utilization, and costs related to three specific comorbidities associated with OAB: urinary tract infections (UTIs), depression, and fracture. Two patient cohorts (tolterodine ER versus oxybutynin ER and tolterodine ER versus oxybutynin IR) were matched on a 1:1 basis according to their propensity to receive a prescription for tolterodine ER. RESULTS: The frequency and relative risk of UTIs were significantly lower in the tolterodine ER group than in the oxybutynin ER and oxybutynin IR groups. The relative risk of depression was also lower in the tolterodine ER group than the oxybutynin ER and oxybutynin IR groups; however, the differences were only significant in the tolterodine ER versus oxybutynin IR comparison. The utilization of UTI- and depression-related services and the number of antiinfective and antidepressant prescriptions were significantly lower in the tolterodine ER group than in the oxybutynin ER group. UTI- and depression-related costs were generally lower in the tolterodine ER group than in the oxybutynin ER or oxybutynin IR group. CONCLUSION: Treatment of OAB patients with tolterodine ER was associated with reduced frequency, relative risk, medical and pharmacy resource utilization, and incurred costs related to selected OAB-associated comorbidities compared with treatment with oxybutynin ER or oxybutynin IR.

Patients with overactive bladders deserve better.

Tolterodine is an effective agent used to treat symptoms of overactive bladder. It is well tolerated and its selectivity for the bladder results in less side effects overall compared to many other agents. Many patients in New Zealand with symptoms of overactive bladder do not have access to tolterodine due to restrictions on its funding by PHARMAC. Alternative treatments are not as well tolerated and are less clinically useful. This leaves many patients vulnerable to significant compromise of their quality of life.

Pharmacological management of overactive bladder : a systematic and critical review of published economic evaluations.

Overactive bladder is a common condition, with recent findings estimating the prevalence in adults at about 15%. Symptoms, including urinary urgency, high voiding frequency and urge incontinence, have been shown to decrease patients' quality of life. Given its high prevalence, the economic burden of overactive bladder is also substantial, with a recent estimate placing the annual cost in the US at 9.1 billion US dollars (year 2000 values). The objective of this review is to provide a critical appraisal of published economic evaluations of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for overactive bladder. Published economic evaluations of treatments for overactive bladder have focused entirely on pharmacological treatments -- mainly on the two most commonly used drugs, oxybutynin and tolterodine, each of which is available in immediate- and extended-release formulations. Ten economic evaluations (more than half are cost-effectiveness studies) have been published. Modelling with decision trees or Markov models has been the predominant method. Evaluations comparing drug therapy with no treatment have concluded that drug therapy is cost effective. Analyses comparing the formulations of oxybutynin and tolterodine have produced highly inconsistent results, largely due to the sources of data employed for effectiveness and treatment discontinuation rates. There are no evaluations of drugs relative to non-pharmacological treatment, and there are other significant gaps in the economic evaluations of treatment to date. These include gaps resulting from a lack of reliable data on the performance of these drugs in real-world settings, particularly data on long-term persistence with treatment. A more definitive pharmacoeconomic comparison of oxybutynin and tolterodine formulations, incorporating all available clinical data, and other treatment options would help direct treatment.

Economic impact of extended-release tolterodine versus immediate- and extended-release oxybutynin among commercially insured persons with overactive bladder.

OBJECTIVE: To examine levels of persistence and compliance as well as the economic impact of extended-release tolterodine (tolterodine ER) versus immediate- and extended-release oxybutynin (oxybutynin IR or oxybutynin ER) among commercially-insured patients with overactive bladder (OAB). METHODS: Patients with OAB who initiated tolterodine ER, oxybutynin IR, or oxybutynin ER between January 2001 and December 2002 were identified from the PharMetrics Patient-Centric database; the first medication used in this timeframe was used for treatment group assignment (ie, patients were only in 1 group). Exploratory assessment of persistency and compliance was conducted among all treated patients: subjects were matched 1:1 based on the estimated propensity score for tolterodine ER in remaining analyses. Measures included patient characteristics as well as levels of medication, outpatient and inpatient resource utilization, and costs. Primary comparisons were made descriptively; costs were evaluated using generalized linear models with a gamma distribution and log-link function. RESULTS: Compliance did not differ between tolterodine ER (77.4%) and oxybutynin ER (74.3%), but was lower for oxybutynin IR (60.9%). Mean (+/- standard deviation) duration of therapy was higher for tolterodine ER (139 +/- 132 days) versus oxybutynin ER (115 +/- 122) and oxybutynin IR (60 +/- 85). Totals of 7257 and 5936 matched pairs were available for tolterodine ER versus oxybutynin ER and oxybutynin IR comparisons, respectively. The mean age was 54 years in all groups; the majority was women. Utilization of outpatient and inpatient medical services was consistently lower among tolterodine ER patients in both comparisons. Total costs were slightly lower for tolterodine ER versus oxybutynin ER (dollar 8303 +/- dollar 18 802 vs dollar 8862 +/- dollar 18 684) and oxybutynin IR (dollar 9975 +/- dollar 24860 vs dollar 10521 +/- dollar 22 602); differences were significant after multivariate adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Use of tolterodine ER results in comparable compliance to oxybutynin ER and longer duration of use relative to either form of oxybutynin. In addition, tolterodine ER may be cost-effective relative to oxybutynin IR or oxybutynin ER among commercially-insured persons with OAB.

Treatment of overactive bladder: a model comparing extended-release formulations of tolterodine and oxybutynin.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare 1-year total healthcare costs for patients with overactive bladder (OAB) initiating treatment with extended-release formulations of tolterodine and oxybutynin: tolterodine tartrate extended-release capsules (tolterodine ER) versus extended-release oxybutynin chloride (oxybutynin ER). METHODS: A model was developed from the payer perspective using data from the PharMetrics Patient-Centric database. Monthly discontinuation rates were derived from a cohort of newly treated patients with OAB (tolterodine ER, n = 15 394 or oxybutynin ER, n = 7934). All were assumed to be receiving therapy for at least 1 month. Medical management costs were based on reimbursement for all services for a matched cohort of patients taking tolterodine ER and oxybutynin ER. Medical management costs for those discontinuing therapy were based on patients receiving OAB care without pharmacotherapy (n = 29 992). Drug costs were from AnalySource (December 2004). RESULTS: After the 11-month follow-up period, 21% of patients taking tolterodine ER and 15% of patients taking oxybutynin ER remained on original therapy. One-year average total costs per patient for those started on tolterodine ER were dollar 8876 and dollar 9080 for oxybutynin ER, a difference of dollar 204 per year. Sensitivity analyses indicated results were robust to changes in drug cost and probability of discontinuation. When discontinuation rates were held equal, cost differences continued to favor tolterodine ER (21%, dollar 272/yr; 15%, dollar 233/yr). CONCLUSION: Those taking tolterodine ER had lower monthly drug and medical management costs. This resulted in a total average annual cost savings of dollar 204 per patient for those started on tolterodine ER. At the end of 1 year, patients with OAB were more likely to remain on original drug treatment taking tolterodine ER versus oxybutynin ER.