Cost-effectiveness analysis of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol and umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol in the management of moderate and severe COPD in China.

OBJECTIVE: A study has analyzed the long-term cost-effectiveness of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol combination therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) versus umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol dual therapy (UMEC/VI) in the treatment of moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), providing evidence for decision-making in COPD treatment. METHODS: From the perspective of the whole society, a Markov model based on the severity of COPD was established, consisting of four states: moderate, severe, very severe, and death. The cycle of the model is three months, and the time frame of the study is 20 years. Data such as initial states, transition probabilities, costs, and utilities were collected from published literature, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) COPD economic report, Yaozh database, and the National Statistics Office. The discount rate is 5 %, and the willingness to pay threshold is set at three times the per capita GDP of China in 2022. TreeAge Pro 2011 was used to obtain the results of multiplication analyses, and one-way factor analysis and probability sensitivity analysis were conducted. RESULTS: The study findings demonstrate that for patients treated with FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI, the 20-year treatment costs amount to $10,126.46 and $10,685.74, respectively. Similarly, the effectiveness is 32.94 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 32.19 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is $-745.70/QALY, which is lower than the willingness to pay threshold. The tornado plot from one-way factor analysis indicates that the first two factors impacting the results are the utility values for severe COPD of UMEC/VI and FF/UMEC/VI. Probability sensitivity analysis indicates that FF/UMEC/VI compared to UMEC/VI can be considered a more cost-effective treatment at the willingness to pay threshold of $35,806.96. CONCLUSION: The triple therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) is more affordable than dual therapy (UMEC/VI) when compared to China's three times GDP per capita criterion.

Prospective observational study of the use of omeprazole and maropitant citrate in veterinary specialist care.

The proton pump inhibitor omeprazole is administered to dogs with gastroduodenal ulceration or oesophagitis, whereas the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist maropitant citrate is licensed as an antiemetic drug. In people, omeprazole is overprescribed in hospitals, increasing the risk of adverse effects and imposing unnecessary costs in healthcare. To investigate the use of omeprazole and maropitant in our veterinary specialist hospital, we conducted a prospective observational study in its Medicine and Surgery wards, recording patient data and obtaining contemporaneous information from clinicians about their reasons for administering either drug. In doing so, we find omeprazole and maropitant are administered to a large proportion of dogs, including to many of those with no presenting signs suggestive of gastrointestinal disease. We find prescribing clinicians consider both drugs safe but often underestimate their financial cost. We find the stated reasons and objective predictors of administration of both drugs vary according to clinical setting but that these modalities yield concordant results. Reviewing the manner of administration and stated indications for use of both drugs, we find omeprazole is often administered outside dosing recommendations, and both drugs are frequently administered for aims that are unlikely to be achieved when considering their known biological effects in dogs. In conclusion, our work reveals probable overprescribing of omeprazole and maropitant citrate in hospitalised dogs, highlighting a need for initiatives to decrease inappropriate prescribing.

Cost-Effectiveness Of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy In COPD: The IMPACT Trial.

Background: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI from a Canadian public healthcare perspective, incorporating data from the IMPACT trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (NCT02164513). Methods: Baseline inputs and treatment effects from IMPACT were populated into the validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model. Canadian unit costs and drug costs (Canadian dollars [C$], 2017) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. Future costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually. Analyses were probabilistic, and outputs included exacerbation rates, costs, and life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Results: Compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI over a lifetime horizon, the analyses predicted that treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in fewer moderate and severe exacerbations, more LYs and more QALYs gained, with a small incremental cost. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained was C$18,989 (95% confidence interval [CI]: C$14,665, C$25,753) versus FF/VI and C$13,776 (95% CI: C$9787, C$19,448) versus UMEC/VI. FF/UMEC/VI remained cost-effective versus both FF/VI and UMEC/VI in all sensitivity analyses, including in scenario analyses that considered different intervention and comparator discontinuation rates, and treatment effects for subsequent therapy. Conclusion: Treatment with FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve outcomes and be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI, in Canada.

Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium as add-on to ICS/LABA therapy in COPD: A UK perspective.

INTRODUCTION: The cost-effectiveness of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) 62.5 µg as add-on therapy to other maintenance COPD treatments is unknown. METHODS: This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of the following in COPD: UMEC + fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 100/25 µg (FF/VI); UMEC + fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 µg (FP/SAL); and UMEC + several alternative choices of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA). The model was informed with direct and indirect data from previously published studies, with a UK perspective and a lifetime horizon. Sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: For the lifetime horizon, compared with FF/VI, FP/SAL and ICS/LABAs, addition of UMEC was associated with incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of £4050, £7210 and £5780, respectively, and incremental costs per life year gain of £3380, £6020 and £4940. All UMEC-containing regimens resulted in numerically lower exacerbation rates versus comparator regimens over a lifetime horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of UMEC to various ICS/LABA treatments was associated with higher cost than ICS/LABA alone, but was cost-effective in most scenarios.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg versus tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective.

BACKGROUND: A head-to-head study demonstrated the superiority of once-daily umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 mcg on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) versus once-daily tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis evaluated the cost effectiveness of UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO from a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective, using data from this study and Spanish literature. METHODS: This analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System with a 3-year horizon as base case. A disease progression model using a linked risk equation approach was used to estimate disease progression and associated healthcare costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints (ECLIPSE) study was used to develop the statistical risk equations for clinical endpoints, and costs were calculated using a health state approach (by dyspnea severity). Utilities for QALY calculation were estimated using patient baseline characteristics within a regression fit to Spanish observational data. Treatment effect, expressed as change from baseline in FEV1 was obtained from the head-to-head study and used in the model (UMEC/VI minus TIO/OLO difference: + 52 mL [95% confidence interval: 28, 77]). Baseline patient characteristics were sourced from Spanish literature or the head-to-head study if unavailable. A scenario analysis using only the intent-to-treat (ITT) population from the head-to-head study, and sensitivity analyses (including probabilistic sensitivity analyses), were conducted. Direct healthcare costs (2017 Euro) were obtained from Spanish sources and costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum. RESULTS: UMEC/VI was associated with small improvements in QALYs (+ 0.029) over a 3-year time horizon, compared with TIO/OLO, alongside cost savings of €393/patient. The ITT scenario analysis and sensitivity analyses had similar results. All probabilistic simulations resulted in UMEC/VI being less costly and more effective than TIO/OLO. CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI dominated TIO/OLO (more effective and less expensive). These results may aid payers and decision-makers in Spain when making judgements on which long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) treatments can be considered cost effective in Spain.

Cost-utility and budget impact analyses of the use of NEPA for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in Italy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficiency of resources allocation and sustainability of the use of netupitant+palonosetron (NEPA) for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis assuming the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective. A published Markov model was adapted to assess the incremental cost-utility ratio of NEPA compared with aprepitant (APR) + palonosetron (PALO), fosaprepitant (fAPR) + PALO, APR + ondansetron (ONDA), fAPR + ONDA in patients receiving a highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and with APR + PALO and fAPR + PALO in patients receiving a moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). SETTING: Oncology hospital department in Italy. METHODS: A Markov model was used to determine the impact of NEPA on the budget of the Italian NHS on a 5-day time horizon, corresponding to the acute and delayed CINV prophylaxis phases. Direct medical costs considered were related to antiemetic drugs, adverse events management, CINV episodes management. Clinical and quality of life data referred to previously published works. The budget impact analysis considered the aforementioned therapies plus PALO alone (for HEC and MEC) on a 5-year time horizon, comparing two scenarios: one considering the use of NEPA and one not considering its use. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and differential economic impact for the Italian NHS between the two scenarios considered. RESULTS: NEPA is more effective and less expensive (dominant) compared with APR + PALO (for HEC and MEC), fAPR + PALO (for HEC and MEC), APR + ONDA (for HEC), fAPR + ONDA (for HEC). The use of NEPA would lead to a 5-year cost decrease of €63.7 million (€42.7 million for HEC and €20.9 million for MEC). CONCLUSIONS: NEPA allows an efficient allocation of resources for the Italian NHS and it is sustainable, leading to a cost decrease compared with a scenario which does not consider its use.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of umeclidinium/vilanterol for the management of patients with moderate to very severe COPD using an economic model.

BACKGROUND: Bronchodilators such as long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) are central to the pharmacological management of COPD. Dual bronchodilation with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI; 62.5/25 µg) is a novel LAMA/LABA combination approved for maintenance treatment for patients with COPD. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of maintenance treatment with UMEC/VI compared with tiotropium (TIO) 18 µg, open dual LAMA + LABA treatment, or no long-acting bronchodilator treatment in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and outcomes associated with UMEC/VI treatment in patients with moderate to very severe COPD (GSK study number: HO-13-13411). Clinical efficacy, costs, utilities, and mortality obtained from the published literature were used as the model inputs. Costs are presented in US dollars based on 2015 prices. The model outputs are total costs, drug costs, other medical costs, number of COPD exacerbations, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and outcomes were discounted at a 3% annual rate. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the effects of changing parameters on the uncertainty of the results. RESULTS: UMEC/VI treatment for moderate to very severe COPD was associated with lower lifetime medical costs ($82,344) compared with TIO ($88,822), open dual LAMA + LABA treatment ($114,442), and no long-acting bronchodilator ($86,751). Fewer exacerbations were predicted to occur with UMEC/VI treatment compared with no long-acting bronchodilator treatment. UMEC/VI provided an 0.11 and 0.25 increase in QALYs compared with TIO and no long-acting bronchodilator treatment, and as such, dominated these cost-effectiveness analyses. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the results were robust. CONCLUSION: The results from this model suggest that UMEC/VI treatment would be dominant compared with TIO and no long-acting bronchodilator treatment, and less costly than open dual LAMA + LABA treatment in patients with moderate to very severe COPD.

Cost-effectiveness of combination therapy umeclidinium/vilanterol versus tiotropium in symptomatic COPD Spanish patients.

PURPOSE: Umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) is a novel fixed dose combination of a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting beta 2 receptor antagonist (LABA) agent. This analysis evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of UMEC/VI compared with tiotropium (TIO), from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A previously published linked equations cohort model based on the epidemiological longitudinal study ECLIPSE (Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate End-points) was used. Patients included were COPD patients with a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) ≤70% and the presence of respiratory symptoms measured with the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale (modified Medical Research Council ≥2). Treatment effect, expressed as change in FEV1 from baseline, was estimated from a 24-week head-to-head phase III clinical trial comparing once-daily UMEC/VI with once-daily TIO and was assumed to last 52 weeks following treatment initiation (maximum duration of UMEC/VI clinical trials). Spanish utility values were derived from a published local observational study. Unitary health care costs (€2015) were obtained from local sources. A 3-year time horizon was selected, and 3% discount was applied to effects and costs. Results were expressed as cost/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed. RESULTS: UMEC/VI produced additional 0.03 QALY and €590 vs TIO, leading to an ICER of €21,475/QALY. According to PSA, the probability of UMEC/VI being cost-effective was 80.3% at a willingness-to-pay of €30,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI could be considered as a cost-effective treatment alternative compared with TIO in symptomatic COPD patients from the Spanish NHS perspective.

The cost-effectiveness of solifenacin vs. trospium in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder in the German National Health Service.

OBJECTIVE: To carry out a cost-utility analysis comparing initial treatment of patients with overactive bladder (OAB) with solifenacin 5 mg/day versus either trospium 20 mg twice a day or trospium 60 mg/day from the perspective of the German National Health Service. METHODS: A decision analytic model with a 3 month cycle was developed to follow a cohort of OAB patients treated with either solifenacin or trospium during a 1 year period. Costs and utilities were accumulated as patients transitioned through the four cycles in the model. Some of the solifenacin patients were titrated from 5 mg to 10 mg/day at 3 months. Utility values were obtained from the published literature and pad use was based on a US resource utilization study. Adherence rates for individual treatments were derived from a United Kingdom general practitioner database review. The change in the mean number of urgency urinary incontinence episodes/day from after 12 weeks was the main outcome measure. Baseline effectiveness values for solifenacin and trospium were calculated using the Poisson distribution. Patients who failed second-line therapy were referred to a specialist visit. Results were expressed in terms of incremental cost-utility ratios. RESULTS: Total annual costs for solifenacin, trospium 20 mg and trospium 60 mg were €970.01, €860.05 and €875.05 respectively. Drug use represented 43%, 28% and 29% of total costs and pad use varied between 45% and 57%. Differences between cumulative utilities were small but favored solifenacin (0.6857 vs. 0.6802 to 0.6800). The baseline incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from €16,657 to €19,893 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: The difference in cumulative utility favoring solifenacin was small (0.0055-0.0057 QALYs). A small absolute change in the cumulative utilities can have a marked impact on the overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and care should be taken when interpreting the results. CONCLUSION: Solifenacin would appear to be cost-effective with an ICER of no more than €20,000/QALY. However, small differences in utility between the alternatives means that the results are sensitive to adjustments in the values of the assigned utilities, effectiveness and discontinuation rates.

[Pharmacoeconomic study of using solifenacin for the treatment of urge urinary incontinence in patients with overactive bladder syndrome].

Overactive bladder syndrome (OAB), accompanied by incontinence, is a relatively common disease. Currently, in the Russian Federation, unfortunately, management of patients with OAB includes the recommendations for symptomatic use of incontinence pads without pharmacotherapy. Along with this, the market is represented by a number of drugs that can reduce the occurrence of adverse symptoms associated with OAB syndrome. This study presents the pharmacoeconomic analysis of use of solifenacin for the treatment of patients with the OAB syndrome in Russia. Based on previous clinical studies, formal mathematical model for the development of OAB have been suggested, taking into account the concomitant symptoms (urinary incontinence), and complications (urinary tract infections, skin infections, depression and fractures). The model considers the direct medical and non-medical costs, as well as indirect social costs, arising from the traditional management of patients with OAB syndrome (no medication) and the use of solifenacin. As a result, it was found that the use of solifenacin is economically feasible option for the management of patients with OAB within 1 year, the difference in costs between these strategies per patient is 2,385 rubles. The use of solifenacin ceases to be a resource-saving if the cost of incontinence pads will reduced by more than half of the basic price included in the calculations, or if the effectiveness of solifenacin would be 15% lower than the value used in the basic model.

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.

Canadian cost-effectiveness analysis of solifenacin compared to oxybutynin immediate-release in patients with overactive bladder.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost effectiveness of solifenacin 5 mg/day compared to oxybutynin immediate-release (IR) 15 mg/day in patients with overactive bladder, from the perspective of the Canadian healthcare (payer) system. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A Markov model was adapted to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of solifenacin and oxybutynin IR over a 1-year time horizon, based on efficacy and discontinuation data from the Canadian VECTOR (VEsicare in Comparison To Oxybutynin for oveRactive bladder patients) study. In the model, patients who discontinued treatment were offered tolterodine extended release 4 mg/day as second-line. Model robustness was tested using various sensitivity analyses. Utility values were derived from published literature; incontinence pads were included in a secondary analysis. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, total costs over 1 year were CAN$695 and CAN$550 in the solifenacin and oxybutynin IR groups, respectively. When including incontinence pad costs, there was an incremental saving of CAN$1,831 per patient with solifenacin. Solifenacin was associated with an incremental QALY gain of 0.01 over 1 year. In the base-case analysis without incontinence pads, the incremental cost-utility ratio for solifenacin was CAN$14,092. Probabilistic analyses showed no overlap in the 95% confidence intervals for total costs or QALYs with or without incontinence pads. Solifenacin was cost effective in >90% of cases, based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAN$50,000 per additional QALY, irrespective of whether pad costs were included in the model. The most influential variables were the discontinuation rates and the cost of incontinence pads. Limitations of the analysis relate mainly to the fact that data in the VECTOR study were collected using a direct questioning approach, which might have increased the reporting of dry mouth. CONCLUSIONS: Solifenacin 5 mg/day was a cost-effective treatment compared with oxybutynin IR 15 mg/day. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00431041 (of the VECTOR study, upon which the analysis in this paper was based).

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of solifenacin flexible dosing in patients with overactive bladder symptoms in four Nordic countries.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present analysis was to analyze and compare the cost-effectiveness of solifenacin flexible dosing (5-10 mg) with tolterodine 4 mg sustained release (SR) or placebo (assumed to be comparable to no treatment) for patients with overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms. DESIGN: A decision-analytic model was constructed. METHODS: Costs and effects were evaluated for the three treatment options in a one-year timeframe. Costs included were treatment costs, cost of pad use, and patients productivity loss based on data from the Nordic countries. SAMPLE: Results from two randomized controlled trials were used as input data in the cost-effectiveness analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality adjusted life years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: Solifenacin flexible dosing was more effective with respect to reducing OAB symptoms compared to both placebo and tolterodine 4 mg. Treatment with both solifenacin and tolterodine was more costly compared to placebo, but treatment with solifenacin was a less costly alternative compared to tolterodine 4 mg SR. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the conclusions were robust. CONCLUSION: Solifenacin flexible dosing was a cost-effective treatment alternative compared to tolterodine 4 mg SR.

The cost utility of solifenacin in the treatment of overactive bladder.

OBJECTIVES: Overactive bladder may cause significant discomfort to patients. The standard therapy for overactive bladder includes behavioural therapy and sometimes medication. Recently, a new medication (solifenacin 5 and 10 mg) was developed for treatment of overactive bladder. The objective of this study was to assess the cost utility of solifenacin 5 and 10 mg for overactive bladder. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to estimate the cost per quality adjusted life years (QALY) over a period of 12-months. Model parameters were based on randomized clinical trials for solifenacin 5 and 10 mg. Data on utility scores were taken from the literature. RESULTS: The incremental cost per QALY for solifenacin 5 mg and solifenacin 10 mg compared with placebo were 17,602 pounds and 24,464 pounds respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed that these results were robust to changes of relevant input data. CONCLUSION: Solifenacin 5 and 10 mg are cost-effective treatments in patients with overactive bladder.

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.