ReviewClinical drug investigation2014
Cost effectiveness of fesoterodine and tolterodine for the treatment of overactive bladder with urge urinary incontinence in Spain and Finland.
Review in Clinical drug investigation, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the Generalizability of Foreign Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Spain Using Data From a Scoping Review of Multinational Studies.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Canadian cost data associated with treating overactive bladder is lacking.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2022Article
- Review of Economic Value Drivers of the Treatment of Overactive Bladder.PharmacoEconomics · 2018Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of fesoterodine flexible dose in newly diagnosed patients with overactive bladder in routine clinical practice in Spain.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOveractive bladder is a prevalent condition worldwide that is associated with a considerable burden, both on the patient and on society.
objectiveOur objective was to assess the economic value of fesoterodine compared with tolterodine extended release (ER) for the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB) with urge urinary incontinence (UUI) in Spain and Finland.
methodsA decision-tree economic model estimated the 52-week costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of OAB/UUI patients initiating treatment with fesoterodine 4 mg/day or tolterodine ER. Individuals were evaluated for treatment response (UUI fewer than one episode/day) and persistence at weeks 4, 12, and 24. Titration from fesoterodine 4 mg/day to 8 mg/day was permitted at week 4. At week 12, non-responders discontinued treatment permanently. Efficacy, discontinuation, and utility data were derived from four clinical trials of fesoterodine. OAB-related costs, including physician visits, laboratory tests, incontinence pads, and comorbidities (fracture, skin infection, urinary tract infections, depression, and nursing home) were also included.
resultsA total of 19.5 % and 18.0 % of fesoterodine and tolterodine ER patients remained on treatment until week 52, respectively. QALYs were higher with fesoterodine than tolterodine ER (0.762 vs. 0.760). In Spain, fesoterodine treatment had higher total costs than (generic) tolterodine ER (€6,697 vs. 6,597), resulting in a cost of €15,633/QALY gained. In Finland, fesoterodine was cost saving relative to (non-generic) tolterodine ER (€7,885 vs. 8,024). Sensitivity analysis confirmed that these findings were robust to the expected price decrease for generic tolterodine ER in Finland.
conclusionFesoterodine is cost effective or cost saving relative to tolterodine ER for the treatment of OAB with UUI in two European countries. Payers and prescribers should consider a broad scope of costs to make informed cost-conscious choices of antimuscarinic treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24567280What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.