Cost-Effectiveness of Sacral Neuromodulation Versus Intravesical Botulinum A Toxin for Treatment of Refractory Urge Incontinence

PurposeWe determined the cost-effectiveness of sacral neuromodulation vs intravesical botulinum toxin A for the treatment of refractory urge incontinence.Materials and MethodsWe developed a Markov decision model using a societal perspective to compare costs (2008 U.S. dollars) and effectiveness (quality adjusted life-years) of sacral nerve stimulation and botulinum toxin A. Our primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which was defined as (sacral nerve stimulation cost − botulinum toxin A cost)/(sacral nerve stimulation quality adjusted life-year − botulinum toxin A quality adjusted life-year). Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of varying efficacy, costs and adverse event rates over the range of reported values.ResultsIn the base case scenario sacral nerve stimulation was more expensive ($15,743 vs $4,392) and more effective (1.73 vs 1.63 quality adjusted life-years) than botulinum toxin A during a 2-year period. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $116,427 per quality adjusted life-year. Using conventional incremental cost-effectiveness ratio thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per quality adjusted life-year, sacral nerve stimulation was not cost-effective. In sensitivity analyses intravesical botulinum generally remained cost-effective.ConclusionsDuring a 2-year period botulinum toxin A was cost-effective compared to sacral neuromodulation for the treatment of refractory urge incontinence. Additional data regarding time to failure after botulinum toxin A injections, long-term efficacy with repeat botulinum toxin A injections and long-term complications with both therapies will be helpful for future cost-effectiveness studies.