Cost-effectiveness analysis of antimuscarinics in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder in Spain: A decision-tree model

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Fesoterodine, a new once daily antimuscarinic, has proven to be an effective, safe, and well-tolerated treatment in patients with overactive bladder (OAB). To date, no analysis has evaluated the economic costs and benefits associated with fesoterodine, compared to antimuscarinics in Spain. The purpose of this analysis was to assess the economic value of OAB treatment with fesoterodine relative to extended release tolterodine and solifenacin, from the societal perspective.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The economic model was based on data from two 12-week, randomized, double-blind, and multicenter trials comparing fesoterodine and tolterodine extended released (ER). Treatment response rates for solifenacin were extracted from the published literature. Discontinuation and efficacy were based on the results of a 12-week multinational randomized clinical trial extrapolated to 52 weeks. Changes in health related quality of life were assessed with the King's Health Questionnaire, which was transformed into preference-based utility values. Medical costs included (expressed in € 2010) were antimuscarinics, physician visits, laboratory tests, incontinence pads and the costs of OAB-related comorbidities, fractures, skin infections, urinary tract infections, depression, and nursing home admissions associated with incontinence. Time lost from work was also considered. Univariate sensitivity analyses were also performed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>At week 12, continents accounted for 50.6%, 40.6% and 47.2% of patients in the fesoterodine, tolterodine, and solifenacin groups, respectively. By week 52, the projected proportions of patients remaining on therapy were 33.1%, 26.5% and 30.8%, respectively. The projected quality- adjusted life years (QALY) gain (compared to baseline) over the 52-week simulation period were 0.01014, 0.00846 and 0.00957, respectively. The overall treatment cost was estimated at €1,937, €2,089 and €1,960 for fesoterodine, tolterodine and solifenacin, respectively. Therefore, treatment with fesoterodine resulted in similar overall costs and greater QALY gain than treatment with either tolterodine or solifenacin. Sensitivity analysis showed that these results were robust to all changes performed.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The results of this economic analysis suggest that fesoterodine is a cost-effective alternative to tolterodine and solifenacin for the treatment of patients with OAB in Spain. Fesoterodine provides additional health benefits while maintain a similar level of costs being a cost-effective treatment strategy from a societal perspective.</p

Challenges in ophthalmic pathology: The vitreoretinal membrane biopsy

The introduction of vitreoretinal microsurgery has produced a new type of biopsy; that of the vitreoretinal membrane. This review investigates methods by which these scar-like tissues are handled in the laboratory and explores the implications of the results of such evaluations. The study of vitreoretinal membrane biopsies has provided much information concerning the pathobiology of the various conditions which may give rise to the tissue as well as insights into how membranes themselves develop. Moreover, the application of new laboratory techniques is expected to enhance our understanding of the formation of vitreoretinal membranes, and lead to further advances in their surgical and medical management.link_to_subscribed_fulltex