Urology practice · 2024
Cost Analysis of Oral Phenazopyridine vs Intravesical Lidocaine for Preprocedural Analgesia for Intradetrusor OnabotulinumtoxinA Injections.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kapur Anjali, Jericevic Dora, Wang Rui, Stewart Lauren, Siddique Moiuri
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Office administration of intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA is commonly used to treat overactive bladder. For preprocedure analgesia, either 50 mL 2% intravesical lidocaine instillation for 20 to 30 minutes or 200 mg oral phenazopyridine can be used. Phenazopyridine is associated with shorter appointment times and is noninferior to lidocaine for pain control in this setting. We performed a cost analysis of phenazopyridine vs lidocaine for analgesia before office intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injection for the treatment of idiopathic overactive bladder.
METHODS: A health care sector-perspective cost analysis was performed. The following assumptions were made: (1) similar efficacy of each medication in providing adequate analgesia, (2) similar physician ease of performing the procedure with either analgesic, and (3) similar patient satisfaction with either analgesic. Average cost of medications, adverse reactions, nursing tasks, and office visit time were found in publicly available data. Sensitivity analyses were performed using TreeAge Pro 2021, R1 software.
RESULTS: Phenazopyridine is less costly compared to lidocaine per visit for office intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injection ($827 vs $925). A difference of $98 per procedure provides a total annual cost savings of over $24 million if all procedures are performed with phenazopyridine instead of lidocaine. Sensitivity analysis showed that phenazopyridine remained less costly under most circumstances, and threshold analysis provided exact circumstances under which phenazopyridine is no longer cost saving.
CONCLUSIONS: Phenazopyridine provides cost savings compared to lidocaine for analgesia before office intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injection for the treatment of idiopathic overactive bladder. If adopted by providers nationwide, phenazopyridine may reduce health care spending and minimize office visit time while maintaining patient pain control and satisfaction.
METHODS: A health care sector-perspective cost analysis was performed. The following assumptions were made: (1) similar efficacy of each medication in providing adequate analgesia, (2) similar physician ease of performing the procedure with either analgesic, and (3) similar patient satisfaction with either analgesic. Average cost of medications, adverse reactions, nursing tasks, and office visit time were found in publicly available data. Sensitivity analyses were performed using TreeAge Pro 2021, R1 software.
RESULTS: Phenazopyridine is less costly compared to lidocaine per visit for office intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injection ($827 vs $925). A difference of $98 per procedure provides a total annual cost savings of over $24 million if all procedures are performed with phenazopyridine instead of lidocaine. Sensitivity analysis showed that phenazopyridine remained less costly under most circumstances, and threshold analysis provided exact circumstances under which phenazopyridine is no longer cost saving.
CONCLUSIONS: Phenazopyridine provides cost savings compared to lidocaine for analgesia before office intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injection for the treatment of idiopathic overactive bladder. If adopted by providers nationwide, phenazopyridine may reduce health care spending and minimize office visit time while maintaining patient pain control and satisfaction.