Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

A cost-utility analysis of tension-free vaginal tape versus colposuspension for primary urodynamic stress incontinence.
BJOG. 2003 Mar; 110(3):255-62.BJOG

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost effectiveness of tension-free vaginal tape compared with open Burch colposuspension as a primary treatment for urodynamic stress incontinence.

DESIGN

Cost-utility analysis alongside a multicentre randomised comparative trial.

SETTING

Gynaecology or Urology departments in 14 centres in the UK and Ireland, including University-associated teaching hospitals and district general hospitals.

POPULATION

Women with urodynamic stress incontinence. Exclusion criteria were: (1) detrusor overactivity; (2) major voiding problems; (3) prolapse; (4) previous surgery for incontinence or prolapse.

METHODS

Resource use data were collected on all 344 patients in the trial, including length of hospital stay, time in theatre and management of complications; resource use was costed using UK unit costs at 1999-2000 prices.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Health outcomes were expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between baseline and six months follow up, based on women's responses to the EQ-5D health questionnaire.

RESULTS

Tension-free vaginal tape resulted in a mean cost saving of pound 243 (95% CI pound 341 to pound 201) compared with colposuspension. Differential mean QALYs per patient (tension-free vaginal tape - colposuspension) was 0.01 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.03). The probability of tension-free vaginal tape being, on average, less costly than colposuspension, was 100%, and the probability of tension-free vaginal tape being more cost effective than colposuspension was 94.6% if the decision-maker was willing to pay pound 30,000 per additional QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this trial suggest that, over a post-operative period of six months, tension-free vaginal tape is a cost effective alternative to colposuspension. The results will need to be reassessed on the basis of longer follow up.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Manca A
Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK.
Sculpher MJ
No affiliation info available
Ward K
No affiliation info available
Hilton P
No affiliation info available

MeSH

Cost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansPolypropylenesQuality of LifeQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSurgical MeshSuture TechniquesTreatment OutcomeUrinary Incontinence, StressVagina

Pub Type(s)

Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

12628263

Citation

Manca, Andrea, et al. "A Cost-utility Analysis of Tension-free Vaginal Tape Versus Colposuspension for Primary Urodynamic Stress Incontinence." BJOG : an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 110, no. 3, 2003, pp. 255-62.
Manca A, Sculpher MJ, Ward K, et al. A cost-utility analysis of tension-free vaginal tape versus colposuspension for primary urodynamic stress incontinence. BJOG. 2003;110(3):255-62.
Manca, A., Sculpher, M. J., Ward, K., & Hilton, P. (2003). A cost-utility analysis of tension-free vaginal tape versus colposuspension for primary urodynamic stress incontinence. BJOG : an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 110(3), 255-62.
Manca A, et al. A Cost-utility Analysis of Tension-free Vaginal Tape Versus Colposuspension for Primary Urodynamic Stress Incontinence. BJOG. 2003;110(3):255-62. PubMed PMID: 12628263.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - A cost-utility analysis of tension-free vaginal tape versus colposuspension for primary urodynamic stress incontinence. AU - Manca,Andrea, AU - Sculpher,Mark J, AU - Ward,Karen, AU - Hilton,Paul, PY - 2003/3/12/pubmed PY - 2003/4/29/medline PY - 2003/3/12/entrez SP - 255 EP - 62 JF - BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology JO - BJOG VL - 110 IS - 3 N2 - OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of tension-free vaginal tape compared with open Burch colposuspension as a primary treatment for urodynamic stress incontinence. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis alongside a multicentre randomised comparative trial. SETTING: Gynaecology or Urology departments in 14 centres in the UK and Ireland, including University-associated teaching hospitals and district general hospitals. POPULATION: Women with urodynamic stress incontinence. Exclusion criteria were: (1) detrusor overactivity; (2) major voiding problems; (3) prolapse; (4) previous surgery for incontinence or prolapse. METHODS: Resource use data were collected on all 344 patients in the trial, including length of hospital stay, time in theatre and management of complications; resource use was costed using UK unit costs at 1999-2000 prices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Health outcomes were expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between baseline and six months follow up, based on women's responses to the EQ-5D health questionnaire. RESULTS: Tension-free vaginal tape resulted in a mean cost saving of pound 243 (95% CI pound 341 to pound 201) compared with colposuspension. Differential mean QALYs per patient (tension-free vaginal tape - colposuspension) was 0.01 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.03). The probability of tension-free vaginal tape being, on average, less costly than colposuspension, was 100%, and the probability of tension-free vaginal tape being more cost effective than colposuspension was 94.6% if the decision-maker was willing to pay pound 30,000 per additional QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this trial suggest that, over a post-operative period of six months, tension-free vaginal tape is a cost effective alternative to colposuspension. The results will need to be reassessed on the basis of longer follow up. SN - 1470-0328 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/12628263/A_cost_utility_analysis_of_tension_free_vaginal_tape_versus_colposuspension_for_primary_urodynamic_stress_incontinence_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -