The cost-effectiveness of sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) for the treatment of idiopathic medically refractory overactive bladder (wet) in the UK.

[OBJECTIVE] To estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of specialised treatment options for medically refractory idiopathic overactive bladder (OAB) wet.

[PATIENTS AND METHODS] The cost-effectiveness of competing treatment options for patients with medically refractory idiopathic OAB wet was estimated from the perspective of the National Health Service in the UK. We compared sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) with percutaneous nerve evaluation (PNE) or tined-lead evaluation (TLE) with optimal medical therapy (OMT), botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) injections, and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS). We used a Markov model with a 10-year time horizon for all treatment options with the exception of PTNS, which has a time horizon of 5 years. Costs and effects (measured as quality-adjusted life years) were calculated to derive incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Direct medical resources included are: device and drug acquisition costs, pre-procedure and procedure costs, and the cost of managing adverse events. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to test robustness of results.

[RESULTS] At 5 years, SNS (PNE or TLE) was more effective and less costly than PTNS. Compared with OMT at 10 years, SNS (PNE or TLE) was more costly and more effective, and compared with BoNT-A, SNS PNE was less costly and more effective, and SNS TLE was more costly and more effective. Decreasing the BoNT-A dose from 150 to 100 IU marginally increased the 10 year ICERs for SNS TLE and PNE (SNS PNE was no longer dominant). However, both SNS options remained cost-effective.

[CONCLUSION] In the management of patients with idiopathic OAB wet, the results of this cost-utility analysis favours SNS (PNE or TLE) over PTNS or OMT, and the most efficient treatment strategy is SNS PNE over BoNT-A over a 10-year period.