HOMEPRODUCTSCOMPANYCONTACTFAQResearchDictionaryPharmaSign Up FREE or Login

Cost Effectiveness of Concurrent Midurethral Sling at the Time of Prolapse Repair: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial.

AbstractIMPORTANCE:
The relative cost per improvement in quality of life can help guide decisions about adding a midurethral sling at the time of prolapse surgery.
OBJECTIVE:
This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic midurethral slings placed at the time of prolapse surgery to reduce de novo urinary incontinence based on a randomized controlled trial.
STUDY DESIGN:
Costs and effectiveness were collected as part of a planned secondary analysis from the Outcomes following vaginal Prolapse repair and mid Urethral Sling (OPUS) trial, where 337 women without symptomatic stress urinary incontinence were randomly assigned to a midurethral sling or sham incisions during vaginal prolapse surgery. Within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and de novo urinary incontinence. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.
RESULTS:
Within-trial societal costs were higher for the sling group than for the control group ($18,170 [95% confidence interval (CI), $16,420-$19,920] vs $15,700 [95% CI, $14,110-$17300], P = 0.041). The changes in QALY were 0.04 (95% CI, 0.02-0.06) versus 0.03 (95% CI, 0.02-0.05; P = 0.54). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for prophylactic sling was $309,620/QALY. This is above the generally accepted range of willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 to $150,000/QALY. At 1 year, urinary incontinence was more common in the control group, and the cost to prevent 1 case was $91. The probability that prophylactic sling is cost-effective is 24%.
CONCLUSIONS:
Prophylactic sling placed during vaginal prolapse surgery reduced the rate of de novo urinary incontinence, but was not cost-effective.
AuthorsRui Wang, Paul Tulikangas, Elisabeth C Sappenfield
JournalUrogynecology (Philadelphia, Pa.) (Urogynecology (Phila)) Vol. 29 Issue 5 Pg. 461-468 (05 01 2023) ISSN: 2771-1897 [Electronic] United States
PMID36701323 (Publication Type: Randomized Controlled Trial, Journal Article)
CopyrightCopyright © 2022 American Urogynecologic Society. All rights reserved.
Topics
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Suburethral Slings
  • Uterine Prolapse (surgery)
  • Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
  • Quality of Life
  • Urinary Incontinence (surgery)

Join CureHunter, for free Research Interface BASIC access!

Take advantage of free CureHunter research engine access to explore the best drug and treatment options for any disease. Find out why thousands of doctors, pharma researchers and patient activists around the world use CureHunter every day.
Realize the full power of the drug-disease research graph!


Choose Username:
Email:
Password:
Verify Password:
Enter Code Shown: