Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2009
Cost-effectiveness analysis of solifenacin flexible dosing in patients with overactive bladder symptoms in four Nordic countries.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Milsom Ian, Axelsen Susanne, Kulseng-Hansen Sigurd, Mattiasson Anders, Nilsson Carl Gustaf, Wickstrøm Jannie
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present analysis was to analyze and compare the cost-effectiveness of solifenacin flexible dosing (5-10 mg) with tolterodine 4 mg sustained release (SR) or placebo (assumed to be comparable to no treatment) for patients with overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms.
DESIGN: A decision-analytic model was constructed.
METHODS: Costs and effects were evaluated for the three treatment options in a one-year timeframe. Costs included were treatment costs, cost of pad use, and patients productivity loss based on data from the Nordic countries.
SAMPLE: Results from two randomized controlled trials were used as input data in the cost-effectiveness analysis.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality adjusted life years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
RESULTS: Solifenacin flexible dosing was more effective with respect to reducing OAB symptoms compared to both placebo and tolterodine 4 mg. Treatment with both solifenacin and tolterodine was more costly compared to placebo, but treatment with solifenacin was a less costly alternative compared to tolterodine 4 mg SR. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the conclusions were robust.
CONCLUSION: Solifenacin flexible dosing was a cost-effective treatment alternative compared to tolterodine 4 mg SR.
DESIGN: A decision-analytic model was constructed.
METHODS: Costs and effects were evaluated for the three treatment options in a one-year timeframe. Costs included were treatment costs, cost of pad use, and patients productivity loss based on data from the Nordic countries.
SAMPLE: Results from two randomized controlled trials were used as input data in the cost-effectiveness analysis.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality adjusted life years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
RESULTS: Solifenacin flexible dosing was more effective with respect to reducing OAB symptoms compared to both placebo and tolterodine 4 mg. Treatment with both solifenacin and tolterodine was more costly compared to placebo, but treatment with solifenacin was a less costly alternative compared to tolterodine 4 mg SR. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the conclusions were robust.
CONCLUSION: Solifenacin flexible dosing was a cost-effective treatment alternative compared to tolterodine 4 mg SR.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Benzhydryl CompoundsCost-Benefit AnalysisCresolsDecision Support TechniquesFemaleFinlandHumansMuscarinic AntagonistsPhenylpropanolamineQuinuclidinesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicScandinavian and Nordic CountriesSolifenacin SuccinateTetrahydroisoquinolinesTolterodine TartrateUrinary Bladder, Overactive