Simpson Andrea N, Garbens Alaina, Dossa Fahima, Coyte Peter C, Baxter Nancy N, McDermott Colleen D
From the Division of Minimally Invasive Gynaecologic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St. Michael's Hospital.
Division of Urology, Department of Surgery.
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019 Jan/Feb;25(1):49-55. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000502.
The objective of this study was to perform a cost-utility analysis of nonsurgical treatments for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in healthy adult women with a health system perspective over a 1-year time horizon.
A decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the following nonsurgical treatment options for SUI in a simulated healthy adult female cohort who had failed Kegel exercises: pelvic floor muscle therapy (PFMT), a disposable tampon device (Impressa), a self-fitting intravaginal incontinence device (Uresta), and a traditional incontinence pessary. Published data and consultation with health care providers were used to estimate efficacies and costs. Health utility estimates were derived from existing literature. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed as well as Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis to account for the impact of parameter uncertainty on costs and efficacies for each treatment. Our primary outcome was the highest net monetary benefit (NMB), which represents the monetary value of the health benefits less the treatment costs. The standard willingness-to-pay threshold of US $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year was used.
The utility of SUI in an otherwise healthy patient was 0.81 ± 0.16 and for subjective cure was 0.93 ± 0.08. Using base-case estimates, PFMT was the most cost-effective treatment with an NMB of US $44,098. The Impressa tampon, Uresta, and traditional pessary had NMBs of US $43,970, $43,785, and $42,846, respectively. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed PFMT to be the most cost-effective treatment option at a willingness to pay of US $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year.
The findings of our cost-utility analysis favor PFMT as the most cost-effective nonsurgical treatment option for SUI. Cost-effectiveness for 1 year of treatment was also favorable for Impressa and Uresta. In jurisdictions where there is no public funding for PFMT, Impressa or Uresta are alternatives for women wishing to avoid surgery.
本研究的目的是从卫生系统的角度,在1年的时间范围内,对健康成年女性压力性尿失禁(SUI)的非手术治疗进行成本效用分析。
构建决策树模型,以评估在模拟的健康成年女性队列中,以下针对凯格尔运动失败的SUI的非手术治疗方案:盆底肌肉治疗(PFMT)、一次性卫生棉条装置(Impressa)、自适配阴道内失禁装置(Uresta)和传统失禁子宫托。使用已发表的数据并咨询医疗保健提供者来估计疗效和成本。健康效用估计值来自现有文献。进行了确定性敏感性分析以及蒙特卡洛概率敏感性分析,以考虑参数不确定性对每种治疗的成本和疗效的影响。我们的主要结果是最高净货币效益(NMB),它代表健康效益的货币价值减去治疗成本。使用的标准支付意愿阈值为每质量调整生命年50,000美元。
在其他方面健康的患者中,SUI的效用为0.81±0.16,主观治愈的效用为0.93±0.08。使用基础病例估计,PFMT是最具成本效益的治疗方法,NMB为44,098美元。Impressa卫生棉条、Uresta和传统子宫托的NMB分别为43,970美元、43,785美元和42,846美元。概率敏感性分析证实,在每质量调整生命年支付意愿为50,000美元时,PFMT是最具成本效益的治疗选择。
我们的成本效用分析结果表明,PFMT是SUI最具成本效益的非手术治疗选择。Impressa和Uresta的1年治疗成本效益也较好。在没有公共资金用于PFMT的司法管辖区,Impressa或Uresta是希望避免手术的女性的替代选择。