Abstract
Objective: To report on the cost-effectiveness of adjustable anchored single-incision mini-slings (mini-slings) compared with tension-free standard mid-urethral slings (standard slings) in the surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Patients and Methods: Data on resource use and quality were collected from women aged ≥18 years with predominant SUI undergoing mid-urethral sling procedures in 21 UK hospitals. Resource use and quality of life (QoL) data were prospectively collected alongside the Single-Incision Mini-Slings versus standard synthetic mid-urethral slings Randomised Control Trial (SIMS RCT), for surgical treatment of SUI in women. A health service provider's (National Health Service [NHS]) perspective with 3-year follow-up was adopted to estimate the costs of the intervention and all subsequent resource use. A generic instrument, EuroQol EQ-5D-3L, was used to estimate the QoL. Results are reported as incremental costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost per QALY. Results: Base case analysis results show that although mini-slings cost less, there was no significant difference in costs: mini-slings versus standard slings: £-6 [95% CI −228–208] or in QALYs: 0.005 [95% CI −0.068–0.073] over the 3-year follow-up. There is substantial uncertainty, with a 56% and 44% probability that mini-slings and standard slings are the most cost-effective treatment, respectively, at a £20 000 willingness-to-pay threshold value for a QALY. Conclusions: At 3 years, there is no significant difference between mini-slings and standard slings in costs and QALYs. There is still some uncertainty over the long-term complications and failure rates of the devices used in the treatment of SUI; therefore, it is important to establish the long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of these procedures.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 230-239 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | BJUI Compass |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Early online date | 13 Nov 2023 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Feb 2024 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:This work was funded by the National Institute of Health Research, Health Technology Assessment programme: project number HTA‐12/127/157. Funding information
Dr. Dwayne Boyers reports grants from UK NIHR during the conduct of the study. Ms. Mary Kilonzo reports grants from UK NIHR during the conduct of the study. Kiron Bhal: I have been a speaker and trainer for the following companies in the past Astellas, Pfizer, AMS, Contura, Allergan and others, where I have received honorariums and sponsorship towards attending scientific conferences. Professor James N'Dow reports HTA General Committee 2016–2018. Professor Graeme MacLennan reports grants from UK NIHR during the conduct of the study. Professor John Norrie reports grants from the University of Edinburgh, outside the submitted work; and past and present member of the following: HTA Commissioning Sub‐Board (EOI), NIHR CTU Standing Advisory Committee, NIHR HTA & EME Editorial Board, Pre‐Exposure Prophylaxis Impact Review Panel, EME Strategy Advisory Committee, EME—Funding Committee Members, EME Funding Committee Sub‐Group Remit & Comp Check, HTA General Committee, HTA Funding Committee Policy Group (formerly CSG) and HTA Commissioning Committee. HTA post‐funding committee teleconference 2016–2019; COVID‐19 reviewing 2020. Professor Mohamed Abdel‐Fattah: None in the last 5 years. Before 2015, I have been a speaker, consultant and/or surgical trainer for a number of industrial companies (Astellas, Ethicon, Bard, Pfizer, AMS, Coloplast and others): I have been reimbursed my travel expenses; and on occasions received personal honorariums; proctorship fees and sponsorship towards attending scientific conferences. Research grant from Coloplast managed by the University of Aberdeen. A limited number of my trainees attended pharmaceutical‐sponsored educational/leadership workshops and/or received assistance in presenting their research work at scientific conferences. Was Chairman of the Scottish Pelvic Floor Network (SPFN), which at the time received financial sponsorship from various industrial companies (including all those mentioned above) and non‐profit organisations for its annual meetings and surgical workshops. The SPFN provided an educational grant funding the PI at the highest recruiting site to attend the International Continence Society annual scientific conference in Brazil in 2014. Ongoing: I receive travel sponsorship and occasionally speaker‘s fees from numerous national and international conferences and non‐profit organisations when invited as a guest speaker and/or expert surgeon. In 2019, and at request from NHS Grampian, I attended 2 educational meetings for setting up sacral nerve stimulation service partially funded by Medtronic. I am the Chief Investigator for four NIHR—HTA‐funded studies. I do not hold (and never held) any shares (or similar) in any of the industrial companies (medical or non‐medical). To the best of my knowledge, none of the above have influenced my research or clinical practice.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors. BJUI Compass published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International Company.
Keywords
- cost utility analysis
- cost-effectiveness analysis
- QALYs
- stress urinary incontinence
Access to Document
- Kilonzo_etal_BJUIC_Three_Year_Cost_VoR
© 2023 The Authors. BJUI Compass published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International Company. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.