Next Article in Journal
Assessment and Diffusion of Medical Innovations in France: An Overview
Previous Article in Journal
Low Rates of Patient-Reported Outcome Claims for Orphan Drugs Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JMAHP
Volume 6
Issue 1
10.1080/20016689.2018.1438721
jmahp-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
Journal of Market Access & Health Policy (JMAHP) is published by MDPI from Volume 12 Issue 1 (2024). Previous articles were published by another publisher in Open Access under a CC-BY (or CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, and they are hosted by MDPI on mdpi.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with Taylor & Francis.
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Cost-Effectiveness of Solifenacin Compared with Oral Antimuscarinic Agents for the Treatment of Patients with Overactive Bladder in the UK

by
Zalmai Hakimi
1,*,
Con Kelleher
2,
Samuel Aballéa
3,
Khaled Maman
4,†,
Jameel Nazir
5,
Colette Mankowski
5 and
Isaac Odeyemi
5,†
1
Medical Affairs Department, Astellas Pharma Europe B.V, Sylviusweg 62, PO Box 344, 2333 BE Leiden, The Netherlands
2
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
3
Health Economics and Outcomes Research Department, Creativ-Ceutical SARL, Paris, France
4
Health Economics and Outcomes Research Department, Creativ-Ceutical Ltd, London, UK
5
Medical Affairs Department, Astellas Pharma Europe Ltd, Chertsey, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Correct affiliation at the initiation of the study and initiation of manuscript development.
J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2018, 6(1), 1438721; https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2018.1438721
Submission received: 20 October 2017 / Revised: 1 January 2018 / Accepted: 30 January 2018 / Published: 20 March 2018

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of solifenacin 5 mg/day versus other oral antimuscarinic agents used for overactive bladder (OAB) from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Study design: In a Markov model, hypothetical patients received solifenacin 5 mg/day or a comparator antimuscarinic, after which they could switch to an alternative antimuscarinic. The model estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) over a 5-year period. Results: Solifenacin 5 mg/day was the dominant treatment strategy (i.e., less costly and more effective) versus tolterodine extended-release (ER) 4 mg/day, fesoterodine 4 and 8 mg/day, oxybutynin ER 10 mg/day and solifenacin 10 mg/day, and was cost-effective (i.e., ICERs below the £30,000 per QALY threshold generally applied in the NHS) versus oxybutynin immediate release (IR) 10 mg/day, tolterodine IR 4 mg/day and trospium chloride 60 mg/day. The probability of solifenacin 5 mg/day being dominant/cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per QALY was 57–98%. Conclusions: Solifenacin 5 mg/day appears to be a cost-effective strategy for the treatment of OAB over a 5-year timeframe compared with other oral antimuscarinic agents in the UK. These findings are important for decision-makers considering the economic implications of selecting treatments for OAB.
Keywords: Cost utility; incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; Markov; quality-adjusted life year; mirabegron; muscarinic agents Cost utility; incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; Markov; quality-adjusted life year; mirabegron; muscarinic agents

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hakimi, Z.; Kelleher, C.; Aballéa, S.; Maman, K.; Nazir, J.; Mankowski, C.; Odeyemi, I. Cost-Effectiveness of Solifenacin Compared with Oral Antimuscarinic Agents for the Treatment of Patients with Overactive Bladder in the UK. J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2018, 6, 1438721. https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2018.1438721

AMA Style

Hakimi Z, Kelleher C, Aballéa S, Maman K, Nazir J, Mankowski C, Odeyemi I. Cost-Effectiveness of Solifenacin Compared with Oral Antimuscarinic Agents for the Treatment of Patients with Overactive Bladder in the UK. Journal of Market Access & Health Policy. 2018; 6(1):1438721. https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2018.1438721

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hakimi, Zalmai, Con Kelleher, Samuel Aballéa, Khaled Maman, Jameel Nazir, Colette Mankowski, and Isaac Odeyemi. 2018. "Cost-Effectiveness of Solifenacin Compared with Oral Antimuscarinic Agents for the Treatment of Patients with Overactive Bladder in the UK" Journal of Market Access & Health Policy 6, no. 1: 1438721. https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2018.1438721

APA Style

Hakimi, Z., Kelleher, C., Aballéa, S., Maman, K., Nazir, J., Mankowski, C., & Odeyemi, I. (2018). Cost-Effectiveness of Solifenacin Compared with Oral Antimuscarinic Agents for the Treatment of Patients with Overactive Bladder in the UK. Journal of Market Access & Health Policy, 6(1), 1438721. https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2018.1438721

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop