Cost Analysis of Oral Phenazopyridine vs Intravesical Lidocaine for Preprocedural Analgesia for Intradetrusor OnabotulinumtoxinA Injections.

INTRODUCTION: Office administration of intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA is commonly used to treat overactive bladder. For preprocedure analgesia, either 50 mL 2% intravesical lidocaine instillation for 20 to 30 minutes or 200 mg oral phenazopyridine can be used. Phenazopyridine is associated with shorter appointment times and is noninferior to lidocaine for pain control in this setting. We performed a cost analysis of phenazopyridine vs lidocaine for analgesia before office intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injection for the treatment of idiopathic overactive bladder. METHODS: A health care sector-perspective cost analysis was performed. The following assumptions were made: (1) similar efficacy of each medication in providing adequate analgesia, (2) similar physician ease of performing the procedure with either analgesic, and (3) similar patient satisfaction with either analgesic. Average cost of medications, adverse reactions, nursing tasks, and office visit time were found in publicly available data. Sensitivity analyses were performed using TreeAge Pro 2021, R1 software. RESULTS: Phenazopyridine is less costly compared to lidocaine per visit for office intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injection ($827 vs $925). A difference of $98 per procedure provides a total annual cost savings of over $24 million if all procedures are performed with phenazopyridine instead of lidocaine. Sensitivity analysis showed that phenazopyridine remained less costly under most circumstances, and threshold analysis provided exact circumstances under which phenazopyridine is no longer cost saving. CONCLUSIONS: Phenazopyridine provides cost savings compared to lidocaine for analgesia before office intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injection for the treatment of idiopathic overactive bladder. If adopted by providers nationwide, phenazopyridine may reduce health care spending and minimize office visit time while maintaining patient pain control and satisfaction.

Shifts in patient preference of third-line overactive bladder therapy after introduction of the implantable tibial nerve stimulator.

INTRODUCTION: Third-line therapies for overactive bladder (OAB) that are currently recommended include intravesical Onabotulinumtoxin-A injections (BTX-A), percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS), and sacral neuromodulation (SNM). The implantable tibial nerve stimulator (ITNS) is a novel therapy that is now available to patients with OAB. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze shifts in patient preference of third-line therapies for OAB after introducing ITNS as an option among the previously established therapies for non-neurogenic OAB. METHODS: A survey was designed and distributed via SurveyMonkey to the platform's audience of U.S. adults of age 18 and older. Screening questions were asked to include only subjects who reported symptoms of OAB. Descriptions of current AUA/SUFU guideline-approved third-line therapies (BTX-A, PTNS, and SNM) were provided, and participants were asked to rank these therapies in order of preference (stage A). Subsequently, ITNS was introduced with a description, and participants were then asked to rank their preferences amongst current guideline-approved therapies and ITNS (stage B). Absolute and relative changes in therapy preferences between stage A and stage B were calculated. Associations between ultimate therapy choice in stage B and participant characteristics were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 485 participants completed the survey (62.5% female). The mean age was 49.1 ± 36.5 years (SD). The most common OAB symptoms reported were urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) (73.0%) and urinary urgency (68.0%). 29.2% of patients had tried medication for OAB in the past, and 8.0%-10.3% of patients were previously treated with a third-line therapy for OAB. In stage A, participants ranked their first choice of third-line therapy as follows: 28% BTX-A, 27% PTNS, and 13.8% SNM. 26.6% of participants chose no therapy, and 4.5% chose all three equally. In stage B, participants ranked their first choice as follows: 27.6% BTX-A, 19.2% PTNS, 7.8% SNM, and 19.2% ITNS. 21.9% of participants chose no therapy and 4.3% chose all four equally as their first choice. There were both absolute and relative declines in proportions of patients interested in BTX-A, SNM, and PTNS as their first choice of third-line therapy with the introduction of ITNS. Patients originally interested in PTNS in stage A had the greatest absolute change after the introduction of ITNS with 7.8% of participants opting for ITNS in stage B. Those interested in SNM in stage A had the largest relative change in interest, with 43.5% of those originally interested in SNM opting for ITNS in stage B. Finally, with the introduction of ITNS, the number of participants initially not interested in any third-line therapy declined by an absolute change of 4.7% and relative change of 17.6%. Participants experiencing concurrent stress urinary incontinence (SUI) symptoms were more likely to choose a current guideline-approved third-line therapy than ITNS or no therapy at all (p = 0.047). Those who had prior experience with third-line therapies were more likely to choose a third-line therapy other than ITNS as their ultimate choice of therapy in stage B. Of those who had chosen a guideline-approved third-line therapy in stage B (not ITNS), 13.6% had prior experience with BTX-A, 14.7% with PTNS, and 32 (11.2%) with SNM (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.009, respectively). CONCLUSION: From our study, it appears that ITNS may attract a subset of patients who would not have otherwise pursued current guideline-approved third-line therapies for OAB. When patients are provided with descriptions of third-line OAB therapies including ITNS as an option, ITNS appears to compete with SNM and PTNS. It is possible that ITNS will provide patients with a different phenotype of neuromodulation therapy that can appeal to a niche OAB population. Given that ITNS devices have been introduced relatively recently to the market, their application will largely depend on cost and payer coverage, provider bias, and patient comorbidities. Further study is needed to understand how these factors interact with and influence patient preference of advanced OAB therapy to understand which patients will most benefit from this treatment modality.

An analysis of factors that influence patient preference of third-line therapy for overactive bladder.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with overactive bladder (OAB) refractory to first- and second-line therapy may pursue third-line therapies, including intradetrusor onabotulinum toxin-A (BTX), peripheral tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS), and sacral neuromodulation (SNM). The factors that influence patient preference for each treatment modality have not yet been explored. This study sought to investigate the specific parameters that patients consider in choosing a third-line therapy for OAB. METHODS: Patients refractory to first- and second-line therapies for OAB were identified in our outpatient clinic and asked to watch an educational video providing information on the risks and benefits of each third-line treatment option. They were then given a questionnaire to rank their preference of therapy and select reasons for why they found each therapy favorable and unfavorable. Patients under age 18 years, non-English speakers, those with a developmental disability, and those with a diagnosis of neurogenic bladder were excluded. RESULTS: Of the 98 patients included in the study, 40 participants (40.8%) chose intradetrusor BTX injections, 34 (34.7%) chose PTNS, and 16 (16.3%) chose SNM as their first choice. Seven patients (7.1%) chose none of the offered therapies, and one patient (1.0%) chose all three therapies with equal preference. BTX was found most attractive for its long efficacy (47%); its least attractive feature was the potential need for self-catheterization due to urinary retention (54%). PTNS was found most attractive for being a nonsurgical option (32%) and having no reported significant complications (39%); its least attractive feature was need for frequent office visits (61%). SNM was found most attractive for its potential for long-term relief without frequent office visits (53%); its least attractive feature was need for an implanted device (33%). Patients opting for SNM had higher scores on Urinary Distress Inventory-6 and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7 questionnaires when compared to patients opting for BTX injections or PTNS (p < 0.05). 47.4% of patients eventually pursued a third-line therapy. Of those, there was a 67.6% concordance rate between the therapy patients ranked first and the therapy they eventually underwent. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with more severe OAB symptoms opt for more invasive and less time-consuming therapy with the potential for long-term relief, namely SNM. Despite thorough counseling, many patients do not progress to advanced OAB therapies. Understanding factors that influence patients' affinity toward a specific type of treatment can aid with individualized counseling on third-line OAB therapies.

Initial experience using the Axonics sacral neuromodulation system in patients with multiple sclerosis.

INTRODUCTION: Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) is third-line therapy approved for urge urinary incontinence (UUI) and urgency, and nonobstructive urinary retention. Multiple sclerosis (MS) patients often suffer from neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD). The utility of SNM in the MS population is limited by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) incompatibility as routine MRIs to evaluate for disease progression are required. The Axonics System is the first Food and Drug Administration-approved SNM device that is 1.5/3 T full-body MRI-conditionally safe. This study seeks to investigate the symptomatic improvement in MS patients after implantation of the Axonics System. METHODS: All MS patients who elected for Axonics SNM from December 2019 to January 2021 were included. Demographics and scores were queried for urogenital distress inventory (UDI-6), incontinence impact questionnaire (IIQ-7), and global response assessment (GRA). RESULTS: Fifteen MS patients with UUI were included. The time to follow-up averaged 121 days. On UDI-6, 12 patients reported improvement, 1 worsening, and 2 no change. Average UDI-6 scores before and after implantation were 56.6 and 25.2 (p < 0.0001). Improvements were significant for all questions under stress urinary incontinence, UUI, and voiding difficulty subcategories. On IIQ-7, 14 patients reported improvement and 1 reported worsening. Average IIQ-7 scores before and after implantation were 59.0 and 22.2 (p < 0.001). Improvements were significant for travel, social, and emotional subcategories, but not for physical activity. The average GRA score was 6 ("moderately improved"). CONCLUSION: The majority of MS patients reported significant initial improvement in UUI and associated quality of life measures on validated questionnaires after implantation of the Axonics System. Future studies are needed to determine the long-term outcomes and durability of this MRI full-body conditionally-safe system.

The Future is Female: The Influence of Female Faculty and Resident Representation on Female Applicant Match Rate Amongst Urology Residency Programs Over 3 Years.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether there is a correlation between the proportion of female faculty and residents at urology residency programs and the proportion of females matched to those programs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We utilized official results from 3 consecutive AUA match cycles from 2018 - 2020 to obtain the number of females matched to each program. The number of female residents and faculty members in each program was acquired through querying program websites and contact with residency program coordinators. The correlation between the proportion of females in the newly matched class of residents and the proportion of current female faculty members and residents in that program was calculated for each match cycle. RESULTS: There was a positive correlation between the proportion of matched female applicants and the proportion of female residents in each program for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 match cycles (R = 0.23, P = .01; R = 0.21, P = .02, R = 0.11, p <.001, respectively). There was a positive correlation between the proportion of matched female applicants and the proportion of female faculty at their matched program in the 2018 and 2020 match cycles (R = 0.22, P = .02; R = 0.06, P < .01, respectively). There was no significant predilection of females matching to programs with a female program director or chairperson, and geographic location of program (based on AUA section) did not appear to influence female applicant match rates. CONCLUSION: There has been a consistent trend in the proportion of matched female applicants to urology programs correlating positively with the proportion of female residents at those programs over the past three years. This is indicative of the increased potential for female mentorship and leadership opportunities. Further research is needed to investigate the factors that draw female applicants to urology programs with increased female representation.

Access to Academic Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Providers for New Patient Visits: How Long Are Wait Times?

OBJECTIVES: To determine the wait times to see an academic Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) urologist or gynecologist and to identify factors that may impact these wait times. METHODS: We reviewed all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited urology and gynecology residency programs. Offices of FPMRS providers were called to ascertain the earliest available new patient visit for a fictional female patient with "urine leakage." Programs without FPMRS faculty (18.7%) were excluded. FPMRS providers that did not accept Medicaid (15.6%) were also excluded. Negative binomial regression was performed using SPSS v24. RESULTS: Final analysis included 362 FPMRS providers. Median wait time for a patient with Medicaid was 30 days (interquartile range [IQR] 15-51) and 26 days (IQR 14-42) for Medicare. The median wait time to see an FPMRS-trained gynecologist was 28 days (IQR 15-50) while FPMRS-trained urologists had a median wait time of 25 days (IQR 13.8-43.3). Female providers had longer median wait times when compared to male providers (30 vs 25 days). On regression analysis, only female gender of the provider was significant (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Our study found that nearly 1 in 5 academic departments did not have an FPMRS-trained provider. We found that new patients with urinary incontinence encountered substantial wait times to see FPMRS providers at academic institutions. As we project increased demand for the FPMRS workforce, our findings reflect a challenging landscape where training additional FPMRS providers may be needed to meet demand.