Estimating the cost of Rh testing and prophylaxis in early pregnancy: A time-driven activity-based costing study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost of Rhesus (Rh) testing and prophylaxis for first-trimester vaginal bleeding in the ambulatory setting. STUDY DESIGN: We used time-driven, activity-based costing to analyze tasks associated with Rh testing and prophylaxis of first-trimester vaginal bleeding at one hospital-based outpatient and two independent reproductive health clinics. At each site, we observed 10 patients undergoing Rh-typing and two patients undergoing Rh prophylaxis. We computed the costs of blood Rh-typing by both fingerstick and phlebotomy, cost of locating previous blood type in the electronic health record (available for 69.8% of hospital-based patients), and costs associated with Rh immune globulin prophylaxis. All costs are reported in 2021 US dollars. RESULTS: The hospital-based clinic reviewed the electronic health record to confirm Rh-status (cost, $26.18 per patient) and performed a phlebotomy, at $47.11 per patient, if none was recorded. The independent clinics typed blood by fingerstick, at a per-patient cost of $4.07. Rh-immune globulin administration costs, including the medication, were similar across facilities, at a mean of $145.66 per patient. Projected yearly costs for testing and prophylaxis were $55,831 for the hospital-based clinic, which was the lowest-volume site, $47,941 for Clinic A, which saw 150 patients/month, and $185,654 for Clinic B, which saw 600 patients/month. CONCLUSIONS: Rh testing and prophylaxis for first-trimester vaginal bleeding generates considerable costs for outpatient facilities, even for Rh-positive patients with a prior blood type on record. IMPLICATIONS: Rh testing and prophylaxis for first-trimester bleeding generate considerable costs even for Rh-positive patients and those with a previously known blood type. These findings highlight the need to reconsider this practice, which is no longer supported by evidence and already safely waived in multiple medical settings in the United States and around the world.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of expectant vs active management for treatment of persistent pregnancies of unknown location.

BACKGROUND: Persistent pregnancies of unknown location are defined by abnormally trending serum human chorionic gonadotropin with nondiagnostic ultrasound. There is no consensus on optimal management. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of 3 primary management strategies for persistent pregnancies of unknown location: (1) expectant management, (2) empirical 2-dose methotrexate, and (3) uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate, if indicated. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective economic evaluation performed concurrently with the Expectant versus Active Management for Treatment of Persistent Pregnancies of Unknown Location multicenter randomized trial that was conducted from July 2014 to June 2019. Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to expectant management, 2-dose methotrexate, or uterine evacuation. The analysis was from the healthcare sector perspective with a 6-week time horizon after randomization. Costs were expressed in 2018 US dollars. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years and the rate of salpingectomy. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were generated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the analysis. RESULTS: Methotrexate had the lowest mean cost ($875), followed by expectant management ($1085) and uterine evacuation ($1902) (P=.001). Expectant management had the highest mean quality-adjusted life years (0.1043), followed by methotrexate (0.1031) and uterine evacuation (0.0992) (P=.0001). The salpingectomy rate was higher for expectant management than for methotrexate (9.4% vs 1.2%, respectively; P=.02) and for expectant management than for uterine evacuation (9.4% vs 8.1%, respectively; P=.04). Uterine evacuation, with the highest costs and the lowest quality-adjusted life years, was dominated by both expectant management and methotrexate. In the base case analysis, expectant management was not cost-effective compared with methotrexate at a willingness to pay of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year given an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $175,083 per quality-adjusted life year gained (95% confidence interval, -$1,666,825 to $2,676,375). Threshold analysis demonstrated that methotrexate administration would have to cost $214 (an increase of $16 or 8%) to favor expectant management. Moreover, expectant management would be favorable in lower-risk patient populations with rates of laparoscopic surgical management for ectopic pregnancy not exceeding 4% of pregnancies of unknown location. Based on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, the probability of expectant management being cost-effective compared with methotrexate at a willingness to pay of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained was 50%. The results were dependent on the cost of surgical intervention and the expected rate of methotrexate failure. CONCLUSION: The management of pregnancies of unknown location with a 2-dose methotrexate protocol may be cost-effective compared with expectant management and uterine evacuation. Although uterine evacuation was dominated, expectant management vs methotrexate results were sensitive to modest changes in treatment costs of both methotrexate and surgical management.

Cost Effectiveness of Additional Preoperative Telephone Call to Increase Surgical Preparedness: Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There is a need for cost effective interventions that increase surgical preparedness in urogynecology. METHODS: We performed an ancillary prospective economic evaluation of the Telehealth Intervention to Increase Patient Preparedness for Surgery (TIPPS) Trial, a randomized multicenter trial that evaluated the impact of a preoperative telehealth call on surgical preparedness in women undergoing urogynecologic surgery. A within-trial analysis from the health care sector and societal perspective was performed. Cost-effectiveness was computed from health care sector and societal perspectives, with an 8-week time horizon. RESULTS: A total of 126 women were included in our analysis. QALYs gained were similar between groups (telehealth 0.1414 + 0.0249; usual care 0.1409 + 0.0179). The cumulative mean per-person costs at 8 weeks from the healthcare sector perspective were telehealth call: $8696 +/- 3341; usual care: $8473 +/- 3118 (p = 0.693) and from the societal perspective were telehealth call: $11,195 + 5191; usual care: $11,213 +/- 4869 (p = 0.944). The preoperative telehealth call intervention was not cost effective from the health care sector perspective with an ICER of $460,091/QALY (95%CI -$7,382,608/QALY, $7,673,961) using the generally accepted maximum willingness to pay threshold of $150,000/QALY (Neumann et al. N Engl J Med. 371(9):796-7, 2014). From the societal perspective, because incremental costs per QALY gained were negative $-35,925/QALY (95%CI, -$382,978/QALY, $317,226), results suggest that preoperative telehealth call dominated usual care. CONCLUSIONS: A preoperative telehealth call is cost effective from the society perspective. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with http://ClinicalTrials.gov . Date of registration: March 26, 2019 Date of initial participant enrollment: June 5, 2019 URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT03890471 Clinical trial identification number: NCT03890471.

Is Preoperative Type and Screen High-value Care? A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Performing Preoperative Type and Screen Prior to Urogynecological Surgery.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Routine preoperative type and screen (T&S) is often ordered prior to urogynecological surgery but is rarely used. We aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of routine preoperative T&S and determine transfusion and transfusion reaction rates that make universal preoperative T&S cost effective. METHODS: A decision tree model from the health care sector perspective compared costs (2020 US dollars) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years, QALYs) of universal preoperative T&S (cross-matched blood) vs no T&S (O negative blood). Our primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Input parameters included transfusion rates, transfusion reaction incidence, transfusion reaction severity rates, and costs of management. The base case included a transfusion probability of 1.26%; a transfusion reaction probability of 0.0013% with or 0.4% without T&S; and with a transfusion reaction, a 50% probability of inpatient management and 0.0042 annual disutility. Costs were estimated from Medicare national reimbursement schedules. The time horizon was surgery/admission. We assumed a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The base case and one-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that routine preoperative T&S is not cost effective, with an ICER of $63,721,632/QALY. The optimal strategy did not change when base case cost, transfusion probability, or transfusion reaction disutility were varied. Threshold analysis revealed that if transfusion reaction probability without T&S is >12%, routine T&S becomes cost effective. Scenarios identified as cost effective in the threshold and sensitivity analyses fell outside reported rates for urogynecological surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Within broad ranges, preoperative T&S is not cost effective, which supports re-evaluating routine T&S prior to urogynecological surgery.

Medical management of early pregnancy loss is cost-effective compared with office uterine aspiration.

BACKGROUND: Early pregnancy loss, also referred to as miscarriage, is common, affecting approximately 1 million people in the United States annually. Early pregnancy loss can be treated with expectant management, medications, or surgical procedures-strategies that differ in patient experience, effectiveness, and cost. One of the medications used for early pregnancy loss treatment, mifepristone, is uniquely regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness from the healthcare sector perspective of medical management of early pregnancy loss, using the standard of care medication regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol, with that of office uterine aspiration. STUDY DESIGN: We developed a decision analytical model to compare the cost-effectiveness of early pregnancy loss treatment with medical management with that of office uterine aspiration. Data on medical management came from the Pregnancy Failure Regimens randomized clinical trial, and data on uterine aspiration came from the published literature. The analysis was from the healthcare sector perspective with a 30-day time horizon. Costs were in 2018 US dollars. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjust life-years gained and the rate of complete gestational sac expulsion with no additional interventions. Our primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjust life-year gained. Sensitivity analysis was performed to identify the key uncertainties. RESULTS: Mean per-person costs were higher for uterine aspiration than for medical management ($828 [95% confidence interval, $789-$868] vs $661 [95% confidence interval, $556-$766]; P=.004). Uterine aspiration more frequently led to complete gestational sac expulsion than medical management (97.3% vs 83.8%; P=.0001); however, estimated quality-adjust life-years were higher for medical management than for uterine aspiration (0.082 [95% confidence interval, 0.8148-0.08248] vs 0.079 [95% confidence interval, 0.0789-0.0791]; P<.0001). Medical management dominated uterine aspiration, with lower costs and higher confidence interval. The probability that medical management is cost-effective relative to uterine aspiration is 97.5% for all willingness-to-pay values of ≥$5600/quality-adjust life-year. Sensitivity analysis did not identify any thresholds that would substantially change outcomes. CONCLUSION: Although office-based uterine aspiration more often results in treatment completion without further intervention, medical management with mifepristone pretreatment costs less and yields similar quality-adjust life-years, making it an attractive alternative. Our findings provided evidence that increasing access to mifepristone and eliminating unnecessary restrictions will improve early pregnancy care.

Apical Support Procedures at the Time of Hysterectomy for Benign Indications: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of performing routine concurrent apical support procedures at the time of hysterectomy for benign indications. METHODS: We developed a Markov decision model from the health care sector perspective to compare concurrent apical support (ie, McCall culdoplasty) at the time of hysterectomy for benign indications compared with hysterectomy alone. We modeled Markov transitions between asymptomatic, prolapse without treatment, and treated prolapse states for 3 years. Our primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, defined as the difference between groups in mean cost (2019 U.S. dollars) divided by the difference in mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Model parameter estimates were taken from the published medical literature. Cost estimates were obtained from Medicare reimbursement rates and the literature. One-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: We assumed a base-case scenario of 13% posthysterectomy prolapse after hysterectomy alone and 2.1% after concurrent apical support, 5.8% and 0.9% undergoing subsequent surgical treatment for prolapse, respectively. Concurrent apical support at the time of hysterectomy had higher costs ($1,667 vs $1,423) but was more effective (2.34 vs 2.31 QALYs) than hysterectomy alone. Concurrent apical support was cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $11,988/QALY, compared with general willingness-to-pay ranges of $50,000-150,000/QALY. In sensitivity analyses, concurrent apical support remained cost effective as long as the rate of posthysterectomy prolapse after concurrent apical support remained less than 8.7%. Monte Carlo simulation showed that concurrent apical support was cost effective in more than 60% of the simulated iterations. CONCLUSION: Apical support at the time of hysterectomy for benign indications is cost effective compared with hysterectomy alone from the health care sector perspective at 3 years. Our results suggest that encouraging concurrent apical support procedures at time of hysterectomy is a cost-effective strategy in preventing posthysterectomy vaginal prolapse.

Is Delaying Urogynecologic Surgery for Patients With Elevated Hemoglobin A1C High-Value Care?

OBJECTIVE: Poor glycemic control is a risk factor for surgical complications. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of immediate versus delayed pelvic reconstructive surgery for women with hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) greater than 8%. METHODS: We designed a decision tree model from a health care sector perspective to compare costs and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) of 3 strategies: patients with HbA1c greater than 8% can undergo (1) immediate surgery, (2) delay surgery 6 months, or (3) delay surgery until HbA1c is less than 8%. Groups 2 and 3 undergo treatments to improve glycemic control. Our primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Time horizon was 1 year. RESULTS: In the base case, immediate surgery compared with delaying surgery until HbA1c <8% had higher costs ($13,775 vs $6,622) and health utilities (0.78 vs 0.76). Immediate surgery was not cost effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $347,132/QALY). Delaying surgery for 6 months (group 2) was dominated (higher cost and lower effectiveness). For patients with either severe prolapse resulting in QALY less than 0.71 (base case 0.75), QALY after surgery greater than 0.84 (base case, 0.80), or the probability of complications with elevated HbA1c less than 17% (base case, 27%), immediate surgery became cost effective. Monte Carlo simulations showed that delaying surgery until HbA1c is less than 8% had a 58% chance of being the preferred strategy at a willingness-to-pay of $150,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with HbA1c greater than 8%, delaying surgery until improved glycemic control is generally cost-effective. Surgery should not be delayed for a prespecified period. Immediate surgery can be cost-effective for patients with severe prolapse or if complication rates decrease to 60% of currently reported rates.

Cost-effectiveness of behavioral and pelvic floor muscle therapy combined with midurethral sling surgery vs surgery alone among women with mixed urinary incontinence: results of the Effects of Surgical Treatment Enhanced With Exercise for Mixed Urinary Incontinence randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is prevalent among women, and it has a substantial economic impact. Mixed urinary incontinence, with both stress and urgency urinary incontinence symptoms, has a greater adverse impact on quality of life and is more complex to treat than either stress or urgency urinary incontinence alone. Studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of treating both the stress and urgency urinary incontinence components simultaneously are lacking. OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness was assessed between perioperative behavioral and pelvic floor muscle therapies combined with midurethral sling surgery and midurethral sling surgery alone for the treatment of women with mixed urinary incontinence. The impact of baseline severe urgency urinary incontinence symptoms on cost-effectiveness was assessed. STUDY DESIGN: This prospective economic evaluation was performed concurrently with the Effects of Surgical Treatment Enhanced with Exercise for Mixed Urinary Incontinence randomized trial that was conducted from October 2013 to April 2016. Participants included 480 women with moderate-to-severe stress and urgency urinary incontinence symptoms and at least 1 stress urinary incontinence episode and 1 urgency urinary incontinence episode on a 3-day bladder diary. The primary within-trial analysis was from the healthcare sector and societal perspectives, with a 1-year time horizon. Costs were in 2019 US dollars. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years and reductions in urinary incontinence episodes per day. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of combined treatment vs midurethral sling surgery alone were calculated, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were generated. Analysis was performed for the overall study population and subgroup of women with Urogenital Distress Inventory irritative scores of ≥50th percentile. RESULTS: The costs for combined treatment were higher than the cost for midurethral sling surgery alone from both the healthcare sector perspective ($5100 [95% confidence interval, $5000-$5190] vs $4470 [95% confidence interval, $4330-$4620]; P<.01) and the societal perspective ($9260 [95% confidence interval, $8590-$9940] vs $8090 [95% confidence interval, $7630-$8560]; P<.01). There was no difference between combined treatment and midurethral sling surgery alone in quality-adjusted life-years (0.87 [95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.89] vs 0.87 [95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.89]; P=.90) or mean reduction in urinary incontinence episodes per day (-4.76 [95% confidence interval, -4.51 to 5.00] vs -4.50 [95% confidence interval, -4.25 to 4.75]; P=.13). When evaluating the overall study population, from both the healthcare sector and societal perspectives, midurethral sling surgery alone was superior to combined treatment. The probability that combined treatment is cost-effective compared with midurethral sling surgery alone is ≤28% from the healthcare sector and ≤19% from the societal perspectives for a willingness-to-pay value of ≤$150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years. For women with baseline Urogenital Distress Inventory irritative scores of ≥50th percentile, combined treatment was cost-effective compared with midurethral sling surgery alone from both the healthcare sector and societal perspectives. The probability that combined treatment is cost-effective compared with midurethral sling surgery alone for this subgroup is ≥90% from both the healthcare sector and societal perspectives, at a willingness-to-pay value of ≥$150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years. CONCLUSION: Overall, perioperative behavioral and pelvic floor muscle therapies combined with midurethral sling surgery was not cost-effective compared with midurethral sling surgery alone for the treatment of women with mixed urinary incontinence. However, combined treatment was of good value compared with midurethral sling surgery alone for women with baseline severe urgency urinary incontinence symptoms.

Cost-effectiveness of Mifepristone Pretreatment for the Medical Management of Nonviable Early Pregnancy: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Early pregnancy loss (EPL) is the most common complication of pregnancy. A multicenter randomized clinical trial compared 2 strategies for medical management and found that mifepristone pretreatment is 25% more effective than the standard of care, misoprostol alone. The cost of mifepristone may be a barrier to implementation of the regimen. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of medical management of EPL with mifepristone pretreatment plus misoprostol vs misoprostol alone in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: This preplanned. prospective economic evaluation was performed concurrently with a randomized clinical trial in 3 US sites from May 1, 2014, through April 30, 2017. Participants included 300 women with anembryonic gestation or embryonic or fetal demise. Cost-effectiveness was computed from the health care sector and societal perspectives, with a 30-day time horizon. Data were analyzed from July 1, 2018, to July 3, 2019. Interventions: Mifepristone pretreatment plus misoprostol administration vs misoprostol alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: Costs in 2018 US dollars, effectiveness in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and treatment efficacy. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of mifepristone and misoprostol vs misoprostol alone were calculated, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were generated. Results: Among the 300 women included in the randomized clinical trial (mean [SD] age, 30.4 [6.2] years), mean costs were similar for groups receiving mifepristone pretreatment and misoprostol alone from the health care sector perspective ($696.75 [95% CI, $591.88-$801.62] vs $690.88 [95% CI, $562.38-$819.38]; P = .94) and the societal perspective ($3846.30 [95% CI, $2783.01-$4909.58] vs $4845.62 [95% CI, $3186.84-$6504.41]; P = .32). The mifepristone pretreatment group had higher QALYs (0.0820 [95% CI, 0.0815-0.0825] vs 0.0806 [95% CI, 0.0800-0.0812]; P = .001) and a higher completion rate after first treatment (83.8% vs 67.1%; P < .001) than the group receiving misoprostol alone. From the health care sector perspective, mifepristone pretreatment was cost-effective relative to misoprostol alone with an ICER of $4225.43 (95% CI, -$195 053.30 to $367 625.10) per QALY gained. From the societal perspective, mifepristone pretreatment dominated misoprostol alone (95% CI, -$5 111 629 to $1 801 384). The probabilities that mifepristone pretreatment was cost-effective compared with misoprostol alone at a willingness-to-pay of $150 000 per QALY gained from the health care sector and societal perspectives were approximately 90% and 80%, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that medical management of EPL with mifepristone pretreatment was cost-effective when compared with misoprostol alone. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02012491.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sacral Neuromodulation versus OnabotulinumtoxinA for Refractory Urgency Urinary Incontinence: Results of the ROSETTA Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: Sacral neuromodulation and intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injection are therapies for refractory urgency urinary incontinence. Sacral neuromodulation involves surgical implantation of a device that can last 4 to 6 years while onabotulinumtoxinA therapy involves serial office injections. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of 2-stage implantation sacral neuromodulation vs 200 units onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of urgency urinary incontinence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective economic evaluation was performed concurrent with the ROSETTA (Refractory Overactive Bladder: Sacral NEuromodulation vs. BoTulinum Toxin Assessment) randomized trial of 386 women with 6 or more urgency urinary incontinence episodes on a 3-day diary. Analysis is from the health care system perspective with primary within-trial analysis for 2 years and secondary 5-year decision analysis. Costs are in 2018 U.S. dollars. Effectiveness was measured in quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) and reductions in urgency urinary incontinence episodes per day. We generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: Two-year costs were higher for sacral neuromodulation than for onabotulinumtoxinA ($35,680 [95% CI 33,920-37,440] vs $7,460 [95% CI 5,780-9,150], p <0.01), persisting through 5 years ($36,550 [95% CI 34,787-38,309] vs $12,020 [95% CI 10,330-13,700], p <0.01). At 2 years there were no differences in mean reduction in urgency urinary incontinence episodes per day (-3.00 [95% CI -3.38 - -2.62] vs -3.12 [95% CI -3.48 - -2.76], p=0.66) or QALYs (1.39 [95% CI 1.34-1.44] vs 1.41 [95% CI 1.36-1.45], p=0.60). The probability that sacral neuromodulation is cost-effective relative to onabotulinumtoxinA is less than 0.025 for all willingness to pay values below $580,000 per QALY at 2 years and $204,000 per QALY at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Although both treatments were effective, the high cost of sacral neuromodulation is not good value for treating urgency urinary incontinence compared to 200 units onabotulinumtoxinA.

Responsiveness and minimally important difference of SF-6D and EQ-5D utility scores for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

BACKGROUND: Utility preference scores are standardized, generic, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures that quantify disease severity and burden and summarize morbidity on a scale from 0 (death) to 1 (optimal health). Utility scores are widely used to measure HRQOL and in cost-effectiveness research. OBJECTIVE: To determine the responsiveness, validity properties, and minimal important difference (MID) of utility scores, as measured by the Short Form 6D (SF-6D) and EuroQol (EQ-5D), in women undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study combined data from 4 large, U.S., multicenter surgical trials enrolling 1321 women with pelvic organ prolapse. We collected condition-specific quality of life data using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ). A subset of women completed the SF6D; women in 2 trials also completed the EQ5D. Mean utility scores were compared from baseline to 12 months after surgery. Responsiveness was assessed using effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM). Validity properties were assessed by (1) comparing changes in utility scores at 12 months between surgical successes and failures as defined in each study, and (2) correlating changes in utility scores with changes in the PFDI and PFIQ. MID was estimated using both anchor-based (SF-36 general health global rating scale "somewhat better" vs "no change") and distribution-based methods. RESULTS: The mean SF-6D score improved 0.050, from 0.705 ± 0.126 at baseline to 0.761 ± 0.131 at 12 months (P < .01). The mean EQ-5D score improved 0.060, from 0.810 ± 0.15 at baseline to 0.868 ± 0.15 at 12 months (P < .01). The ES (0.13-0.61) and SRM (0.13-0.57) were in the small-to-moderate range, demonstrating the responsiveness of the SF-6D and EQ-5D similar to other conditions. SF-6D and EQ-5D scores improved more for prolapse reconstructive surgical successes than for failures. The SF-6D and EQ-5D scores correlated with each other (r = 0.41; n = 645) and with condition-specific instruments. Correlations with the PFDI and PFIQ and their prolapse subscales were in the low to moderate range (r = 0.09-0.38), similar to other studies. Using the anchor-based method, the MID was 0.026 for SF-6D and 0.025 for EQ-5D, within the range of MIDs reported in other populations and for other conditions. These findings were supported by distribution-based estimates. CONCLUSION: The SF-6D and EQ-5D have good validity properties and are responsive, preference-based, utility and general HRQOL measures for women undergoing surgical treatment for prolapse. The MIDs for SF-6D and EQ-5D are similar and within the range found for other medical conditions.

The Refractory Overactive Bladder: Sacral NEuromodulation vs. BoTulinum Toxin Assessment: ROSETTA trial.

We present the rationale for and design of a randomized, open-label, active-control trial comparing the effectiveness of 200 units of onabotulinum toxin A (Botox A®) versus sacral neuromodulation (InterStim®) therapy for refractory urgency urinary incontinence (UUI). The Refractory Overactive Bladder: Sacral NEuromodulation vs. BoTulinum Toxin Assessment (ROSETTA) trial compares changes in urgency urinary incontinence episodes over 6 months, as well as other lower urinary tract symptoms, adverse events and cost effectiveness in women receiving these two therapies. Eligible participants had previously attempted treatment with at least 2 medications and behavioral therapy. We discuss the importance of evaluating two very different interventions, the challenges related to recruitment, ethical considerations for two treatments with significantly different costs, follow-up assessments and cost effectiveness. The ROSETTA trial will provide information to healthcare providers regarding the technical attributes of these interventions as well as the efficacy and safety of these two interventions on other lower urinary tract and pelvic floor symptoms. Enrollment began in March, 2012 with anticipated end to recruitment in mid 2014.

Validity of utility measures for women with urge, stress, and mixed urinary incontinence.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the construct validity of 3 health status classification system instruments-Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI-3), EuroQol (EQ-5D), and Short Form 6D (SF-6D)-and a visual analog scale (VAS) for measuring utility scores in women with urge, stress, and mixed urinary incontinence. STUDY DESIGN: Utility scores were measured in 202 women with urinary incontinence. Pelvic floor symptom severity and quality of life were measured using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, respectively. Construct, discriminant, and concurrent validity were evaluated. RESULTS: Significant correlations were noted between utility scores and the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (r = -0.22 to -0.42, P < .05) and the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (r = -0.32 to -0.50, P < .05). Mean utility scores were significantly lower for women with urge or mixed incontinence compared to stress incontinence for the EQ-5D (0.71 ± 0.23, 0.73 ± 0.26, and 0.81 ± 0.16, respectively, P = .02) and the SF-6D (0.76 ± 0.12, 0.74 ± 0.12, and 0.81 ± 0.11, respectively, P = .02) but not the HUI-3 or the VAS. There was a clinically important difference in utility scores (>0.03) between women with urge or mixed incontinence as compared to stress incontinence for the HUI-3, EQ-5D, and SF-6D but not the VAS. Utility preference scores were significantly lower for women with combined urinary and fecal incontinence (0.69-0.73) than urinary incontinence alone (0.77-0.84, P < .01). CONCLUSION: The HUI-3, EQ-5D, and SF-6D, but not the VAS, provide valid measurements for utility scores in women with stress, urge, and mixed urinary incontinence.