Abstract
BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is prevalent among women, and it has a substantial economic impact. Mixed urinary incontinence, with both stress and urgency urinary incontinence symptoms, has a greater adverse impact on quality of life and is more complex to treat than either stress or urgency urinary incontinence alone. Studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of treating both the stress and urgency urinary incontinence components simultaneously are lacking. OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness was assessed between perioperative behavioral and pelvic floor muscle therapies combined with midurethral sling surgery and midurethral sling surgery alone for the treatment of women with mixed urinary incontinence. The impact of baseline severe urgency urinary incontinence symptoms on cost-effectiveness was assessed. STUDY DESIGN: This prospective economic evaluation was performed concurrently with the Effects of Surgical Treatment Enhanced with Exercise for Mixed Urinary Incontinence randomized trial that was conducted from October 2013 to April 2016. Participants included 480 women with moderate-to-severe stress and urgency urinary incontinence symptoms and at least 1 stress urinary incontinence episode and 1 urgency urinary incontinence episode on a 3-day bladder diary. The primary within-trial analysis was from the healthcare sector and societal perspectives, with a 1-year time horizon. Costs were in 2019 US dollars. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years and reductions in urinary incontinence episodes per day. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of combined treatment vs midurethral sling surgery alone were calculated, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were generated. Analysis was performed for the overall study population and subgroup of women with Urogenital Distress Inventory irritative scores of ≥50th percentile. RESULTS: The costs for combined treatment were higher than the cost for midurethral sling surgery alone from both the healthcare sector perspective ($5100 [95% confidence interval, $5000-$5190] vs $4470 [95% confidence interval, $4330-$4620]; P<.01) and the societal perspective ($9260 [95% confidence interval, $8590-$9940] vs $8090 [95% confidence interval, $7630-$8560]; P<.01). There was no difference between combined treatment and midurethral sling surgery alone in quality-adjusted life-years (0.87 [95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.89] vs 0.87 [95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.89]; P=.90) or mean reduction in urinary incontinence episodes per day (-4.76 [95% confidence interval, -4.51 to 5.00] vs -4.50 [95% confidence interval, -4.25 to 4.75]; P=.13). When evaluating the overall study population, from both the healthcare sector and societal perspectives, midurethral sling surgery alone was superior to combined treatment. The probability that combined treatment is cost-effective compared with midurethral sling surgery alone is ≤28% from the healthcare sector and ≤19% from the societal perspectives for a willingness-to-pay value of ≤$150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years. For women with baseline Urogenital Distress Inventory irritative scores of ≥50th percentile, combined treatment was cost-effective compared with midurethral sling surgery alone from both the healthcare sector and societal perspectives. The probability that combined treatment is cost-effective compared with midurethral sling surgery alone for this subgroup is ≥90% from both the healthcare sector and societal perspectives, at a willingness-to-pay value of ≥$150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years. CONCLUSION: Overall, perioperative behavioral and pelvic floor muscle therapies combined with midurethral sling surgery was not cost-effective compared with midurethral sling surgery alone for the treatment of women with mixed urinary incontinence. However, combined treatment was of good value compared with midurethral sling surgery alone for women with baseline severe urgency urinary incontinence symptoms.