Testing and treating women after unsuccessful conservative treatments for overactive bladder or mixed urinary incontinence: A model-based economic evaluation based on the BUS study

Abstract

Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness of bladder ultrasonography, clinical history, and urodynamic testing in guiding treatment decisions in a secondary care setting for women failing first line conservative treatment for overactive bladder or urgency-predominant mixed urinary incontinence. Design: Model-based economic evaluation from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective using data from the Bladder Ultrasound Study (BUS) and secondary sources. Methods: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision tree and a 5-year time horizon based on the outcomes of cost per woman successfully treated and cost per Quality-Adjusted Life-Year (QALY). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and a value of information analysis are also undertaken. Results: Bladder ultrasonography is more costly and less effective test-treat strategy than clinical history and urodynamics. Treatment on the basis of clinical history alone has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £491,100 per woman successfully treated and an ICER of £60,200 per QALY compared with the treatment of all women on the basis of urodynamics. Restricting the use of urodynamics to women with a clinical history of mixed urinary incontinence only is the optimal test-treat strategy on cost-effectiveness grounds with ICERs of £19,500 per woman successfully treated and £12,700 per QALY compared with the treatment of all women based upon urodynamics. Conclusions remained robust to sensitivity analyses, but subject to large uncertainties. Conclusions: Treatment based upon urodynamics can be seen as a cost-effective strategy, and particularly when targeted at women with clinical history of mixed urinary incontinence only. Further research is needed to resolve current decision uncertainty.