Cost analysis for mirabegron use in the treatment of children with neurogenic bladder.

INTRODUCTION

Mirabegron is a beta-3 adrenergic receptor agonist that received FDA approval in 2021 to treat neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO) in children ages three years and older. Despite its safety and efficacy, access to mirabegron frequently remains restricted by payor coverage policies.

OBJECTIVE

This cost minimization study sought to determine the cost implications from a payor perspective of mirabegron use at different points in the treatment pathway for pediatric NDO.

STUDY

DESIGN

A Markov decision analytic model was constructed to assess the costs for eight treatment strategies over a 10-year period, using six-month cycles (Table). Five strategies involve mirabegron use as first-, second-, third-, or fourth-line therapy. Two strategies, including the "base case," entail use of anticholinergic medications followed by onabotulinum toxin type A (Botox) injection and augmentation cystoplasty. A strategy involving first-line Botox was also modeled. The effectiveness, adverse event rates, attrition rates, and costs associated with each treatment option were obtained from the clinical literature and adjusted to a six-month cycle. Costs were adjusted to 2021-dollar value. A discount rate of 3% was used. To quantify uncertainty, costs and treatment transition probabilities were modeled as gamma and PERT distributions, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted using a Monte Carlo simulation with 100,000 iterations. Analyses were performed using Treeage Pro (Healthcare Version).

RESULTS

The least costly strategy involved first-line mirabegron (expected cost $37,954). All strategies involving mirabegron were less costly than the base case ($56,417). On PSA, first-line mirabegron was the least costly strategy in 88.9% of cases (mean $37,604, 95% CI: $37,579-37,628); in 100% of cases, the least costly strategy involved mirabegron use. Cost savings associated with mirabegron use were attributable to decreased use of augmentation cystoplasty and Botox injections.

DISCUSSION: This is the first study to compare costs across multiple strategies involving mirabegron to treat pediatric NDO. Mirabegron use likely yields cost savings for the payor: the least costly strategy involved first-line mirabegron, and all pathways incorporating mirabegron were less costly than those without mirabegron use. These findings provide an updated cost analysis for the treatment of NDO by investigating mirabegron use alongside more established treatment options.

CONCLUSION

Use of mirabegron for the treatment of pediatric NDO is likely associated with cost savings as compared to treatment pathways without mirabegron. Expansion of payor coverage for mirabegron, as well as clinical studies to study first-line mirabegron use, should be considered.