The Pharmacological Costs of Second-Line Treatments for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In ovarian cancer, it is uncertain which chemotherapy regimen is more clinically effective and cost-effective for the treatment of recurrence; therefore, it might be interesting to make a balance between the cost of the drugs administered and the difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). METHODS: The present evaluation was restricted to pivotal phase 3 randomized controlled trials. We calculated the pharmacological costs necessary to get the benefit in PFS and OS. The costs of drugs are at the pharmacy of our hospital and are expressed in Euros (&OV0556;). We have subsequently applied the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale. RESULTS: Our study evaluated 3 phase 3 randomized controlled trials, including 2004 patients. The most relevant increase of costs was associated with the combination chemotherapy including trabectedin, with the highest costs for month of PFS gained (15,836 &OV0556;) and for month of OS gained (7198 &OV0556;), but it substantially differs considering the data of partially platinum-sensitive populations (platinum-free interval of 6-12 months), with 3959 &OV0556; for month of OS gained. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of trabectedin to pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer can lead to an increase of pharmacological costs. Differently, considering OS in patients with platinum-free interval of 6 to 12 months, there is a halving of pharmacological costs with the addition of trabectedin to pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. These costs are in line with the spending suggested as sustainable (thresholds of <$61,500 per life-year gained).

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pazopanib in second-line treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcoma in Spain.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficiency of pazopanib compared with trabectedin in the treatment of adult patients with selective subtypes of advanced soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) after chemotherapy failure. METHODS: The progression of STS was modeled using a partitioned survival analysis model. Survival curves for pazopanib and trabectedin were modeled using data from PALETTE phase III clinical trial and based on unadjusted indirect comparison. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The Spanish National Health System perspective was considered over a 10-year time horizon, including direct health care costs (, 2014). A discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The robustness of the results was evaluated using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). RESULTS: Pazopanib was associated with better health outcomes than trabectedin (0.705 versus 0.686 QALY). Pazopanib also showed lower direct health care costs (21,861 versus 45,338), mainly due to lower cost of pharmacological treatment (13,762 versus 33,392), administration (57 versus 2,955) and AE management (658 versus 1,695) costs. PSA confirmed that pazopanib was a dominant option in 71% of the simulations performed. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, and from a health economics perspective, pazopanib was the option of choice versus trabectedin in the treatment of adult patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma after chemotherapy failure.

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.

Trabectedin for the treatment of advanced metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: a NICE single technology appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of trabectedin (PharmaMar) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the treatment of advanced metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (aMSTS), as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The ERG produced a review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology contained within the manufacturer's submission to NICE. The ERG also independently modified the manufacturer's decision analytic model to examine the impact of altering some of the key assumptions. The main evidence was derived from a single phase II randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in liposarcoma and leiomyosarcoma only, in which the licensed dose of trabectedin was compared with a different dose of trabectedin. Additional data were also presented from three uncontrolled phase II trials. Supplementary studies were used to represent best supportive care (BSC). The median overall survival (OS) was 13.9 months for the licensed dose of trabectedin in the main randomized controlled trial (RCT) and ranged from 9.2 months to 12.8 months in the other studies included. Supplementary studies supplied by the manufacturer, and assumed to represent BSC, had median OS of 5.9-6.6 months. The progression-free survival (PFS) rates at 6 months for trabectedin were 35.5 % in the main RCT and 24.4-29 % in the other studies included. The PFS rates at 6 months were 8-14 % for BSC. In the manufacturer's original submission to NICE, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of trabectedin compared with BSC was approximately £44,000 per QALY gained. After amendment of errors identified by the ERG, the ICER reported by the manufacturer increased to approximately £61,000. The ERG concluded that, despite clarifications from the manufacturer and the revisions made to the model, there was still considerable uncertainty in the ICER. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC) gave a negative initial recommendation, although indicated that trabectedin in aMSTS met the end-of-life criteria. Subsequently, the manufacturer submitted a patient access scheme (PAS) where any cycles beyond the fifth were provided at no cost by the manufacturer. This improved the ICER to approximately £34,000 per QALY gained. The AC gave a positive recommendation, subject to the implementation of the PAS.

Trabectedin for the treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer.

The paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of trabectedin for the treatment of relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, based upon a review of the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The submission addressed only part of the decision problem and did not provide evidence to compare trabectedin (Yondelis®, PharmaMar) and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride (PLDH) (Caelyx®, Schering-Plough) with key comparators. The submission's direct comparison evidence came from one reasonable-quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) of trabectedin and PLDH versus PLDH alone (ET743-OVA-301). The results of the RCT were subdivided into the entire platinum-sensitive population (> 6-month relapse after initial platinum-based chemotherapy) and partially platinum-sensitive (≥ 6- to 12-month relapse) and fully platinum-sensitive (> 12-month relapse) populations. The outcomes included were overall survival, progression-free survival measured by three types of assessor, response rates, adverse effects of treatment, health-related quality of life and cost per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained. A mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis comparing trabectedin and PLDH with single-agent PLDH within the entire platinum-sensitive population, with paclitaxel or with topotecan also formed part of the submission. The RCT data showed that trabectedin plus PLDH compared with PLDH monotherapy had a significant effect on overall survival only within the partially platinum-sensitive subgroup. PFS results reported by the independent radiologists showed significant effects in favour of the trabectedin and PLDH arm for the entire and partially platinum-sensitive populations only. Rates of grade 3 and 4 adverse events were mostly higher in the trabectedin and PLDH arm than in the PLDH alone arm. There were several issues regarding the undertaking of the MTC, and thus the data were not considered robust. Furthermore, the ERG did not believe the MTC to be necessary to answer the decision problem. The manufacturer submitted a de novo cost-effectiveness model. The main analysis compared trabectedin in combination with PLDH versus paclitaxel, topotecan and PLDH (each as monotherapy) in the entire platinum-sensitive population, using results estimated from the MTC. Additional analyses were presented comparing trabectedin in combination with PLDH versus PLDH monotherapy using direct evidence from the OVA-301 trial for the fully, partially and entire platinum-sensitive populations. The cost per QALY gained for trabectedin in combination with PLDH versus PLDH monotherapy was estimated to be £ 70,076 in the main analysis. In the additional analyses, the cost per QALY gained for trabectedin in combination with PLDH versus PLDH monotherapy was £ 94,832, £ 43,996 and £ 31,092 for the entire, partially and fully platinum-sensitive populations, respectively. Additional work was undertaken by the ERG using patient-level data and amending some assumptions to provide a better statistical fit to the Kaplan-Meier data than the exponential distribution assumed by the manufacturer. The ERG base-case estimate of the cost per QALY of trabectedin in combination with PLDH ranged from £46,503 to £54,607 in the partially platinum-sensitive population. At the time of writing, trabectedin in combination with PLDH for the treatment of women with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer is not recommended by NICE in the final appraisal determination.

Trabectedin in the treatment of metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and value of information.

BACKGROUND: to assess the cost-effectiveness of trabectedin compared with end-stage treatment (EST) after failure with anthracycline and/or ifosfamide in metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (mSTS). DESIGN: analysis was carried out using a probabilistic Markov model with trabectedin → EST and EST arms, three health states (stable disease, progressive disease and death) and a lifetime perspective (3% annual discount rate). Finnish resources (drugs, mSTS, adverse events and travelling) and costs (year 2008) were used. Efficacy was based on an indirect comparison of the STS-201 and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer trials. QLQ-C30 scale scores were mapped to 15D, Short Form 6D and EuroQol 5D utilities. The outcome measures were the cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier, incremental cost per life year gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and the expected value of perfect information (EVPI). RESULTS: trabectedin → EST was associated with 14.0 (95% confidence interval 9.1-19.2) months longer survival, €36 778 higher costs (€32 816 using hospital price for trabectedin) and €31 590 (€28 192) incremental cost per LYG with an EVPI of €3008 (€3188) compared with EST. With a threshold of €50 000 per LYG, trabectedin → EST had 98.5% (98.2%) probability of being cost-effective. The incremental cost per QALY gained with trabectedin → EST was €42 633-47 735 (€37 992-42 819) compared with EST. The results were relatively insensitive to changes. CONCLUSION: trabectedin is a potentially cost-effective treatment of mSTS patients.

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).

Trabectedin for the treatment of advanced metastatic soft tissue sarcoma.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of trabectedin for the treatment of advanced metastatic soft tissue sarcoma, in accordance with the licensed indication, based on the evidence submission from the manufacturer to NICE as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The outcomes stated in the manufacturer's definition of the decision problem were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rates, adverse effects of treatment, health-related quality of life, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The clinical evidence was derived from one randomised controlled trial (RCT), in which the licensed dose of trabectedin was compared with a different dose of trabectedin, and three phase II studies. In the RCT, the median OS was 13.9 months for the licensed dose of trabectedin, which was not significantly different from that for the comparator dose of trabectedin, which was 11.8 months. From the phase II uncontrolled trials, median OS was reported as 9.2 or 12.8 months. The RCT reported significantly superior PFS for the licensed dose of trabectedin (median 3.3 months) over the comparator trabectedin dose (median 2.3 months). One phase II uncontrolled trial reported median PFS as 1.9 months in the licensed dose of trabectedin. The RCT reported PFS rates at 6 months were 35.5% for the licensed dose of trabectedin, and 27.5% for the comparator dose of trabectedin. From the phase II uncontrolled trials, PFS rates at 6 months were 24.4% or 29%. For the RCT, deaths attributed to trabectedin occurred in 3.1% of the licensed dose, and 2.3% of the comparator group. The most common severe adverse events were neutropenia, although with a low rate of febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase elevation, although these were reported to be non-cumulative and reversible. Following dialogue iterations with the ERG team, the manufacturer revised the model twice. However, despite revisions, errors/inconsistencies were found in the latest version of the model and were corrected by the ERG (only for the base case). In the latest manufacturer's submission, the cost per QALY gained of trabectedin compared with best supportive care (BSC) was estimated to be 56,985 pounds for the base case using effectiveness from the STS (Soft Tissue Sarcomas)-201 trial for trabectedin and a pool analysis of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer data set for BSC. This analysis was constrained to patients with L-sarcomas only. When the joint uncertainty between parameters was considered, the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed that trabectedin has a very low probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of 30,000 pounds per QALY gained compared with BSC for any scenario. The guidance has yet to be issued by NICE.

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.