ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2016
OnabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of overactive bladder: a cost-effectiveness analysis versus best supportive care in England and Wales.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Quality of Life in Female Patients with Overactive Bladder after Botulinum Toxin Treatment.Toxins · 2023Article
- Axonics Sacral Neuromodulation System for Treating Refractory Overactive Bladder: A NICE Medical Technologies Guidance.Applied health economics and health policy · 2022Review
- Canadian cost data associated with treating overactive bladder is lacking.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2022Article
- Cost-Utility Analysis of Oxybutynin vs. OnabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) in the Treatment of Overactive Bladder Syndrome.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Review of Economic Value Drivers of the Treatment of Overactive Bladder.PharmacoEconomics · 2018Review
- Sacral neuromodulation in overactive bladder: a review and current perspectives.Research and reports in urology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX(®)) 100 U + best supportive care (BSC) was compared with BSC alone in the management of idiopathic overactive bladder in adult patients who are not adequately managed with anticholinergics. BSC included incontinence pads and, for a proportion of patients, anticholinergics and/or occasional clean intermittent catheterisation. A five-state Markov model was used to estimate total costs and outcomes over a 10-year period. The cohort was based on data from two placebo-controlled trials and a long-term extension study of onabotulinumtoxinA. After discontinuation of initial treatment, a proportion of patients progressed to downstream sacral nerve stimulation (SNS). Cost and resource use was estimated from a National Health Service perspective in England and Wales using relevant reference sources for 2012 or 2013. Results showed that onabotulinumtoxinA was associated with lower costs and greater health benefits than BSC in the base case, with probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicating an 89 % probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio would fall below £20,000. OnabotulinumtoxinA remained dominant over BSC in all but two scenarios tested; it was also economically dominant when compared directly with SNS therapy. In conclusion, onabotulinumtoxinA appears to be a cost-effective treatment for overactive bladder compared with BSC alone.
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.