Economic evaluation of duloxetine for the treatment of women with stress urinary incontinence: a Markov model comparing pharmacotherapy with pelvic floor muscle training.
ABSTRACT Duloxetine is a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor and may be useful for treating women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in general practice.
The objective of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of 2 duloxetine strategies (duloxetine alone and duloxetine after inadequate response to pelvic floor muscle training [PFMT]) compared with PFMT or no treatment for women aged>or=50 years with SUI.
A Markov model with a 3-month cycle length was developed, with a time horizon of 5 years. Incontinence severity was based on incontinence episode frequency per week (IEF/week). Four SUI health states were distinguished in the model: no SUI (0 incontinence episode [IE] per week), mild SUI (19 IEs/week), moderate SUI (10-25 IEs/week), and severe SUI (>or=26 IEs/week). Transition probabilities were calculated, based on published evidence, expert opinion, and demographic data. Outcomes were expected total societal costs and expected IEs. The analysis was performed from the societal perspective of The Netherlands, and all costs were reported in year-2002 euros. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.
In the model, providing PFMT cost euro0.03/IE avoided, compared with no treatment. Duloxetine after inadequate PFMT cost euro3.81/IE avoided, compared with PFMT One-way sensitivity analyses indicated that these results were robust regarding variation in age, IEF/week, and discount rate. Below the ceiling ratio of euro3.65/IE avoided, PFMT had the highest probability of being cost-effective. With higher ceiling ratios, duloxetine after inadequate PFMT had the highest cost-effectiveness probability.
Treating patients with duloxetine after inadequate PFMT response yielded additional health effects in the model, but would require society in The Netherlands to pay euro3.81/IE avoided for women aged>or=50 years with SUI being treated in general practice. It is up to policy-makers to determine whether this ratio would be acceptable.
- SourceAvailable from: C.H. van der Vaart[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To assess the cost-effectiveness of duloxetine compared with conservative therapy in women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Cost and outcome data were taken from the Stress Urinary Incontinence Treatment (SUIT) study, a 12-month, prospective, observational, naturalistic, multicenter, multicountry study. Costs were assessed in UK pound and outcomes in quality adjusted life years using responses to the EuroQol (EQ-5D); numbers of urine leaks were also estimated. Potential selection bias was countered using multivariate regression and propensity score analysis. Duloxetine alone, duloxetine in combination with conservative treatment, and conservative treatment alone were associated with roughly two fewer leaks per week compared with no treatment. Duloxetine alone and with conservative treatment for SUI were associated with incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of about 0.03 over a year compared with no treatment or with conservative treatment alone. Conservative treatment alone did not show an effect on QALYs. None of the interventions appeared to have marked impacts on costs over a year. Depending on the form of matching, duloxetine either dominated or had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below pound900 per QALY gained compared with no treatment and with conservative treatment alone. Duloxetine plus conservative therapy had an ICER below pound5500 compared with no treatment or conservative treatment alone. Duloxetine compared with duloxetine plus conservative therapy showed similar outcomes but an additional cost for the combined intervention. Although the limitations of the use of SUIT's observational data for this purpose need to be acknowledged, the study suggests that initiating duloxetine therapy in SUI is a cost-effective treatment alternative.Value in Health 04/2010; · 2.19 Impact Factor
- 12/2008: pages 511-520;
- Clinical nurse specialist CNS 09/2012; 26(5):244-9. · 0.74 Impact Factor