ArticlePharmacoEconomics2015
Cost-effectiveness analysis of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX(®)) for the management of urinary incontinence in adults with neurogenic detrusor overactivity: a UK perspective.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modeling in R: a practical application using a cost-effectiveness analysis.Health economics review · 2025Review
- The Worldwide Economic Impact of Neurogenic Bladder.Current bladder dysfunction reports · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the cost effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX(®), 200 units [200 U]) for the management of urinary incontinence (UI) in adults with neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO) due to subcervical spinal cord injury or multiple sclerosis that is not adequately managed with anticholinergic drugs (ACHDs). PERSPECTIVE: UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.
methodsA Markov state-transition model was developed, which compared onabotulinumtoxinA + best supportive care (BSC) with BSC alone (comprising behavioural therapy and pads, alone or in combination with clean intermittent catheterization and possibly with ACHDs). Non-responders were eligible for invasive procedures. Health states were defined according to the reduction in UI episodes. Efficacy data and estimates of resource utilization were pooled from 468 patients on onabotulinumtoxinA in two phase III clinical trials. Drug costs (2013) and administration costs (NHS Reference Costs 2011-2012) were obtained from published sources. The time horizon of the model was 5 years, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5%. Scenario, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were conducted to explore uncertainties around the assumptions.
resultsIn the base case, treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA + BSC over 5 years was associated with an increase in costs of £1,689 and an increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 0.4, compared with BSC alone, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £3,850 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses showed that utility values had the greatest influence on model results. PSA suggests that onabotulinumtoxinA + BSC had a 100 % probability of being cost effective at a willingness to pay of <£20,000.
conclusionFor adult patients with NDO who are not adequately managed with ACHDs, onabotulinumtoxinA + BSC appears to be a cost-effective use of resources in the UK NHS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.