A cost-utility analysis of artificial urinary sphincter versus AdVance male sling in post prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence: A publicly funded health care perspective.

AIMS

To investigate the long-term cost-utility of the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) compared with Transobturator Retroluminal Sling (AdVance) in the treatment of patients with severe post prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence (PPSUI) from a Canadian provincial health perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model with Monte Carlo simulation was developed with a cycle length of 1 year and time horizon up to 10 years to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Patients were assigned to treatment with either AUS or an AdVance sling. Transition probabilities, efficacy data, and utility indices were derived from published literature and expert opinion. Cost data were obtained from provincial health care system and hospital data in 2016-Canadian dollars. The primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year. A standard discount rate of 1.5% was applied annually. Probabilistic and one way deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

AUS implantation had a 10-year mean total cost of $14 228 (SD ± 3,509) for 7.58 QALYs. AdVance sling had a mean total cost $18 938 (SD ± 12,435) for 6.43 QALYs. The incremental cost savings of AUS over 10-years was -$ 4710 with an added effectiveness of 1.15 QALYs. At a willingness to pay threshold of $50 000, AUS remained the most cost-effective option. A limitation of our analysis is the lack of direct long-term comparisons between both scenarios along with standard success definition.

CONCLUSIONS

AUS implantation appears to be more economical treatment strategy for severe PPSUI compared with AdVance sling for a publicly funded health care system over a 5- and 10-year time horizon.