PHARMACOECONOMIC STUDY OF THE USE OF DRUG SOLIFENACIN FOR THE TREATMENT OF URGE URINARY INCONTINENCE IN PATIENTS WITH OVERACTIVE BLADDER SYNDROME


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Overactive bladder syndrome (OAB), accompanied by incontinence, is a relatively common disease. Currently, in the Russian Federation, unfortunately, management of patients with OAB includes the recommendations for symptomatic use of incontinence pads without pharmacotherapy. Along with this, the market is represented by a number of drugs that can reduce the occurrence of adverse symptoms associated with OAB syndrome. This study presents the pharmacoeconomic analysis of use of solifenacin for the treatment of patients with the OAB syndrome in Russia. Based on previous clinical studies, formal mathematical model for the development of OAB have been suggested, taking into account the concomitant symptoms (urinary incontinence), and complications (urinary tract infections, skin infections, depression and fractures). The model considers the direct medical and non-medical costs, as well as indirect social costs, arising from the traditional management of patients with OAB syndrome (no medication) and the use of solifenacin. As a result, it was found that the use of solifenacin is economically feasible option for the management of patients with OAB within 1 year, the difference in costs between these strategies per patient is 2,385 rubles. The use of solifenacin ceases to be a resource-saving if the cost of incontinence pads will reduced by more than half of the basic price included in the calculations, or if the effectiveness of solifenacin would be 15% lower than the value used in the basic model.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

M. V Avksentyeva

Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; First MSMU n.a. I.M. Sechenov

Center for the Evaluation of Technologies in Health Care; Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine

K. V Gerasimova

Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; First MSMU n.a. I.M. Sechenov

Center for the Evaluation of Technologies in Health Care; Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine

G. R Khachatryan

Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

Center for the Evaluation of Technologies in Health Care

M. Yu. Frolov

Volgograd State Medical University; IPO «Interregional Association of Clinical Pharmacologists»

Email: mufrolov66@gmail.com
PhD in Medical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Course of FAT at the Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Critical Care; Head of the expert group

V. V Omelyanovsky

Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

Center for the Evaluation of Technologies in Health Care

N. A Avksentyev

Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; Scientific Research Financial Institute

Center for the Evaluation of Regional Reforms

References

  1. Abrams P., Artibani W., Cardozo L. et al. Reviewing the ICS 2002 terminology report: the ongoing debate. Neurourol Urodyn. 2006; 25: 293.
  2. Abrams P., Cardozo L., Fall M. et al. The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the Standardisation Sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002; 21: 167-178.
  3. Chapple C., Artibani W., Cardozo L. et al. The role of urinary urgency and its measurement in the overactive bladder symptom syndrome: current concepts and future prospects. BJU Int. 2005; 95: 335-340.
  4. Brown J., McGhan W., Chokroverty S. Comorbidities associated with overactive bladder. Am J Manag Care. 2000; 6(11): 574-579.
  5. Brown J., Vittinghoff E, Wyman J. et al. Urinary incontinence: does it increase risk for falls and fractures? Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000; 48(7): 721-725.
  6. Castro Diaz D., Rebollo P., Gonzalez-Segura Alsina D. Comorbidity associated to overactive bladder syndrome. Arch Esp Urol. 2009; 62(8): 639-645.
  7. Hasegawa J., Kuzuya M., Iguchi A. Urinary incontinence and behavioural symptoms are independent risk factors for recurrent and injurious falls, respectively, among residents in long-term care facilities. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2010; 50(1): 77-81.
  8. Johansson C., Molander U., Milsom I. et al. Association between urinary incontinence and urinary tract infections, and fractures in postmenopausal women. Maturitas. 1996; 23(3): 265-271.
  9. Wagner T., Hu T., Bentkover J. et al. Health-related consequences of overactive bladder. Am J Manag Care. 2002; 8(19): 598-607.
  10. Irwin D., Milsom I., Hunskaar S. et al. Population-based survey of urinary incontinence, overactive bladder, and other lower urinary tract symptoms in five countries: results of the EPIC study. Eur Urol. 2006; 50: 1306-1315.
  11. Milsom I., Abrams P., Cardoza L. et al. How widespread are the symptoms of overactive bladder and how are they managed? A population-based prevalence study. BJU Int. 2001; 87: 760-766.
  12. Stewart W., Van Rooyen J., Cundiff G. et al. Prevalence and burden of overactive bladder in the United States. World J Urol. 2003; 20: 327-336.
  13. Пушкарь Д.Ю. Гиперактивный мочевой пузырь у женщин. М.: МЕДпресс-информ. 2003. 160 с.
  14. Bolge S.C., Cerulli A., Kahler K.H. et al. Impact of successful treatment of overactive bladder on health care resource use and productivity. DrugBenefit Trends. 2006; 18: 244-255.
  15. Kobelt G. Economic considerations and outcome measurement in urge incontinence. Urology. 1997; 50: 100-107.
  16. Chapple C., Arano P., Bosch J. et al. Solifenacin appears effective and well tolerated in patients with symptomatic idiopathic detrusor overactivity in a placebo- and tolterodine-controlled phase 2 dose-finding study. BJU Int. 2004; 93(1): 71-77.
  17. Armstrong E.P., Malone D.C. Cost-effectiveness analysis of anti-muscarinic agents for the treatment of overactive bladder. Journal of Medical Economics. 2012; 15: 35-44.
  18. Cardozo L., Thorpe A., Warner J. et al. The cost-effectiveness of solifenacin vs fesoterodine, oxybutynin immediate-release, propiverine, tolterodine extended-release and tolterodine immediate-release in the treatment of patientswith overactive bladder in the UK National Health Service. BJU International. 2010; 106: 506-514.
  19. Hakkaart L., Verboom P., Phillips R. et al. The cost utility of solifenacin in the treatment of overactive bladder. Int Urol Nephrol. 2009; 41: 293-298.
  20. Speakman M., Khullar V., Mundy A. et al. A cost-utility analysis of once daily solifenacin compared to tolterodine in the treatment of overactive bladder syndrome. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008; 24(8): 2173-2179.
  21. Zinner N., Noe L. et al. Impact of solifenacin on resource utilization, work productivity and health utility in overactive bladder patients switching from tolterodine ER. Current medical research and opinion. 2008; 24: 1583-1591.
  22. Guzman A. et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of antimuscarinics in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder in Spain: A decision-tree model. BMC Urology. 2011; 11:9.
  23. Kobelt G., Johnson L., Mattiasson A. Cost effectiveness of new treatments for overactive bladder: the example of tolterodine, a new muscarinic agent: a Markov model. Neurourol Urodynam. 1998; 17: 599-611.
  24. Рациональная фармакотерапия в урологии. Руководство для практикующих врачей // Под общей ред. Лопаткина Н.А., Перепановой Т.С. М.: «Литтерра». 2006.
  25. Клинико-экономический анализ // Под ред. П.А. Воробьева. М.: Ньюдиамед. 2008.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies