Next Article in Journal
Health-Related Quality of Life and Risk Factors among Chinese Women in Japan Following the COVID-19 Outbreak
Previous Article in Journal
The Families and Schools for Health Project: A Longitudinal Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial Targeting Children with Overweight and Obesity
Previous Article in Special Issue
Urinary Incontinence in Physically Active Older Women of Northeast Brazil
Article

Cost-Utility Analysis of Oxybutynin vs. OnabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) in the Treatment of Overactive Bladder Syndrome

1
Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Business School, Imperial College London, London SW7 2BX, UK
2
Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
3
Department of Economics and Public Policy, Business School, Imperial College London, London SW7 2BX, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Javier Jerez-Roig, Joanne Booth, Suzanne Hagen and María Giné-Garriga
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(16), 8743; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168743
Received: 6 July 2021 / Revised: 31 July 2021 / Accepted: 6 August 2021 / Published: 19 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Pelvic Health and Human Movement)
Background: The UK National Health Service (NHS) propose the use of oxybutynin prior to onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) in the management of overactive bladder syndrome (OAB). Oxybutynin is costly and associated with poor adherence, which may not occur with Botox. We conducted a cost-utility analysis (CUA) to compare the medications. Methods: we compared the two treatments in quality-adjusted life years (QALYS), through the NHS’s perspective. Costs were obtained from UK-based sources and were discounted. Total costs were determined by adding the treatment cost and management cost for complications on each branch. A 12-month time frame was used to model the data into a decision tree. Results: Our results found that using Botox first-line had greater cost utility than oxybutynin. The health net benefit calculation showed an increase in 0.22 QALYs when Botox was used first-line. Botox also had greater cost-effectiveness, with the exception of pediatric patients with an ICER of £42,272.14, which is above the NICE threshold of £30,000. Conclusion: Botox was found to be more cost-effective than antimuscarinics in the management of OAB in adults, however less cost-effective in younger patients. This predicates the need for further research to ascertain the age at which Botox becomes cost-effective in the management of OAB. View Full-Text
Keywords: economic evaluation; cost-utility; oxybutynin; onobotulinumtoxinA; overactive bladder syndrome economic evaluation; cost-utility; oxybutynin; onobotulinumtoxinA; overactive bladder syndrome
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Shabir, H.; Hashemi, S.; Al-Rufayie, M.; Adelowo, T.; Riaz, U.; Ullah, U.; Alam, B.; Anwar, M.; de Preux, L. Cost-Utility Analysis of Oxybutynin vs. OnabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) in the Treatment of Overactive Bladder Syndrome. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8743. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168743

AMA Style

Shabir H, Hashemi S, Al-Rufayie M, Adelowo T, Riaz U, Ullah U, Alam B, Anwar M, de Preux L. Cost-Utility Analysis of Oxybutynin vs. OnabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) in the Treatment of Overactive Bladder Syndrome. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(16):8743. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168743

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shabir, Habiba, Sana Hashemi, Moussa Al-Rufayie, Tayo Adelowo, Umar Riaz, Umayair Ullah, Benyamin Alam, Mehreen Anwar, and Laure de Preux. 2021. "Cost-Utility Analysis of Oxybutynin vs. OnabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) in the Treatment of Overactive Bladder Syndrome" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 16: 8743. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168743

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop