Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-07-2019 | Stress Incontinence | Review Article

Heterogeneity of cost estimates in health economic evaluation research. A systematic review of stress urinary incontinence studies

Authors: Sandra Zwolsman, Arnoud Kastelein, Joost Daams, Jan-Paul Roovers, B. C. Opmeer, On behalf of the WOMEN-UP Consortium: http://www.women-up.eu/consortium/

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 7/2019

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

There is increased demand for an international overview of cost estimates and insight into the variation affecting these estimates. Understanding of these costs is useful for cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) research into new treatment modalities and for clinical guideline development.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE & other non-indexed materials and Ovid Embase for articles published between 1995 and 2017. The National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS-EED) filter and the McMaster sensitive therapy filter were combined with a bespoke search strategy for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). We extracted unit cost estimates, assessed variability and methodology, and determined transferability.

Results

We included 37 studies in this review. Four hundred and eighty-two cost estimates from 13 countries worldwide were extracted. Descriptive analysis shows that hospital stay in gynecology ranged between €82 and €1,292 per day. Costs of gynecological consultation range from €30 in France to €158 in Sweden. In the UK, costs are estimated at €228 per hour. Costs of a tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) device range from €431 in Finland to €994 in Canada. TVT surgery per minute costs €25 in France and €82 in Sweden. Total costs of TVT range from €1,224 in Ireland to €5,809 for inpatient care in France. Variation was explored.

Conclusions

Heterogeneity was observed in cost estimates for all units at all levels of health care. CEAs of SUI interventions cannot be interpreted without bias when the base of these analyses—namely costs—cannot be compared and generalized.

Milsom I, Coyne KS, Nicholson S, Kvasz M, Chen CI, Wein AJ. Global prevalence and economic burden of urgency urinary incontinence: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):96–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.08.031.CrossRef

Hannestad YS, Rortveit G, Sandvik H, Hunskaar S. A community-based epidemiological survey of female urinary incontinence: the Norwegian EPINCONT study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(11):1150–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00232-8.CrossRefPubMed

Hunskaar S, Lose G, Sykes D, Voss S. The prevalence of urinary incontinence in women in four European countries. BJU Int. 2004;93:324–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2003.04609.x.CrossRef

Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jönsson B, Luce BR, Neumann PJ, Siebert U, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462308080343.CrossRefPubMed

Rawlings T, Zimmern PE. Economic analyses of stress urinary incontinence surgical procedures in women. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35:1040–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22878.CrossRefPubMed

De Soarez PC, Silva AB, Randi BA, Novaes HM, Sartori AM. Systematic review of economic evaluation studies for dengue vaccine: how valid are the results? Value Health. 2017;20(9):A932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.2918.CrossRef

Yabroff KR, Borowski L, Lipscomb J. Economic studies in colorectal cancer: challenges in measuring and comparing costs. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2013;46:62–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgt001.CrossRef

Fukuda H, Lee J, Imanaka Y. Costs of hospital-acquired infection and transferability of the estimates: a systematic review. Infection. 2011;39:185–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-011-0095-7.CrossRefPubMed

Sculpher M, Pang F, Manca A, Drummond M, Golder S, Urdahl H, Davies L, Eastwood A. Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(49): iii-iv, 1–192. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta8490

10.

Vijgen SM, Opmeer BC, Mol BW. The methodological quality of economic evaluation studies in obstetrics and gynecology: a systematic review. Am J Perinatol. 2012;30(4):253–60. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1323591.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Moreno K, Montesino M. Economic impact of tension free vaginal tape surgery for urinary incontinence in an ambulatory regimen compared with hospital admission. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2007;41(5):392–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365590601183600.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Trading Economics. Consumer price index. 2017. Retrieved from https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/consumer-price-index-cpi.

13.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Purchasing power. 2017. Retrieved from http://stats.oecd.org/.

14.

Ankardal M, Jarbrink K, Milsom I, Heiwall B, Lausten-Thomsen N, Ellstrom-Engh M. Comparison of health care costs for open Burch colposuspension, laparoscopic colposuspension and tension-free vaginal tape in the treatment of female urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2007;26(6):761–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.20417.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Boyers D, Kilonzo M, Mostafa A, Abdel-Fattah M. Comparison of an adjustable anchored single-incision mini-sling, Ajust(®) , with a standard mid-urethral sling, TVT-O(TM): a health economic evaluation. BJU Int. 2013;112(8):1169–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12388.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Brunenberg DEM, Joore MA, Veraart CPWM, Berghmans BCM, van der Vaart CH, Severens JL. Economic evaluation of duloxetine for the treatment of women with stress urinary incontinence: a Markov model comparing pharmacotherapy with pelvic floor muscle training. Clin Ther. 2006;28(4):604–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2006.04.009.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Dumville JC, Manca A, Kitchener HC, Smith AR, Nelson L, Torgerson DJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis of open colposuspension versus laparoscopic colposuspension in the treatment of urodynamic stress incontinence. BJOG. 2006;113(9):1014–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01036.x.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Hana D, Amir I, Amel K. Assessment of clinical effectiveness and economic viability of the obturator tension free vaginal tape method for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence by cost benefit analysis. Eur J Gen Med. 2012;9(3):178–82. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejgm/82457.CrossRef

19.

Kilonzo M, Vale L, Stearns SC, Grant A, Cody J, Glazener CM, et al. Cost effectiveness of tension-free vaginal tape for the surgical management of female stress incontinence. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20(4):455–63. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462304001357.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Kobelt G, Fianu-Jonasson A. Treatment of stress urinary incontinence with non-animal stabilised hyaluronic acid/dextranomer (NASHA/Dx) gel: an analysis of utility and cost. Clin Drug Investig. 2006;26(10):583–91. https://doi.org/10.2165/00044011-200626100-00005.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Kung RC, Lie K, Lee P, Drutz HP. The cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic versus abdominal Burch procedures in women with urinary stress incontinence. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1996;3(4):537–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1074-3804(05)80164-1.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Lamb SE, Pepper J, Lall R, Jorstad-Stein EC, Clark MD, Hill L, et al. Group treatments for sensitive health care problems: a randomised controlled trial of group versus individual physiotherapy sessions for female urinary incontinence. BMC Womens Health. 2009;9:26. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-9-26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Lo K, Marcoux V, Grossman S, Kung R, Lee P. Cost comparison of the laparoscopic Burch colposuspension, laparoscopic two-team sling procedure, and the transobturator tape procedure for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013;35(3):252–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30997-X.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Manca A, Sculpher MJ, Ward K, Hilton PA. Cost-utility analysis of tension-free vaginal tape versus colposuspension for primary urodynamic stress incontinence. BJOG. 2003;110(3):255–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-0328(02)02915-X.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Mihaylova B, Pitman R, Tincello D, van der Vaart H, Tunn R, Timlin L, et al. Cost-effectiveness of duloxetine: the stress urinary incontinence treatment (SUIT) study. Value Health. 2010;13(5):565–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00729.x.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Moore KH, O’Sullivan RJ, Simons A, Prashar S, Anderson P, Louey M. Randomised controlled trial of nurse continence advisor therapy compared with standard urogynaecology regimen for conservative incontinence treatment: efficacy, costs and two year follow up. BJOG. 2003;110(7):649–57. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-0528.2003.02264.x.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Persson J, Teleman P, Eten-Bergquist C, Wolner-Hanssen P. Cost-analyzes based on a prospective, randomized study comparing laparoscopic colposuspension with a tension-free vaginal tape procedure. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002;81(11):1066–73. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0412.2002.811112.x.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Sjӧstrӧm M, Umefjord G, Lindholm L, Samuelsson E. Cost-effectiveness of an internet-based treatment program for stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34(3):244–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22540.CrossRef

29.

Sjӧstrӧm M, Lindholm L, Samuelsson E. Mobile app for treatment of stress urinary incontinence: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(5):e154. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7383.CrossRef

30.

Subak LL, Goode PS, Brubaker L, Kusek JW, Schembri M, Lukacz ES, et al. Urinary incontinence management costs are reduced following Burch or sling surgery for stress incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(2):171.e1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.03.012.CrossRef

31.

Valpas A, Rissanen P, Kujansuu E, Nilsson CG. A cost-effectiveness analysis of tension-free vaginal tape versus laparoscopic mesh colposuspension for primary female stress incontinence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85(12):1485–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016340601033584.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Vermeulen KM, Visser E, Messelink EJ, Schram AJ, Berger MY, de Bock GH, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a pro-active approach of urinary incontinence in women. BJOG. 2016;123(7):1213–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14253.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Albers-Heitner CP, Joore MA, Winkens RAG, Lagro-Janssen ALM, Severens JL, Berghmans LCM. Cost-effectiveness of involving nurse specialists for adult patients with urinary incontinence in primary care compared to care-as-usual: an economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Neurourol Urodyn. 2012;31:526–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.21204.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Jacklin P, Duckett J, Renganathan A. Analytic model comparing the cost utility of TVT versus duloxetine in women with urinary stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(8):977–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-010-1132-2.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Foote AJ, Moore KH. The cost of urogynaecological treatments: which are more cost-effective? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;47(3):240–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828X.2007.00726.x.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Montesino-Semper MF, Jimenez-Calvo JM, Cabases JM, Sanchez-Iriso E, Hualde-Alfaro A, Garcia-Garcia D. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the surgical treatment of female urinary incontinence using slings and meshes. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;171(1):180–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.08.035.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Ramsay IN, Ali HM, Hunter M, Stark D, McKenzie S, Donaldson K, et al. A prospective, randomized controlled trial of inpatient versus outpatient continence programs in the treatment of urinary incontinence in the female. Int Urogynecol J. 1996;7(5):260–3.CrossRef

38.

Kondo A, Isobe Y, Kimura K, Kamihira O, Matsuura O, Gotoh M, et al. Efficacy, safety and hospital costs of tension-free vaginal tape and pubovaginal sling in the surgical treatment of stress incontinence. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2006;32(6):539–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2006.00469.x.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Kunkle CM, Hallock JL, Hu X, Blomquist J, Thung SF, Werner EF. Cost utility analysis of urethral bulking agents versus midurethral sling in stress urinary incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(3):154–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000173.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Maher CF, O’Reilly BA, Dwyer PL, Carey MP, Cornish A, Schluter P. Pubovaginal sling versus transurethral macroplastique for stress urinary incontinence and intrinsic sphincter deficiency: a prospective randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2005;112(6):797–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00547.x.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Norton PA, Nager CW, Brubaker L, Lemack GE, Sirls LT, Holley R, et al. Urinary incontinence treatment, network. The cost of preoperative urodynamics: a secondary analysis of the value trial. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35(1):81–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22684.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Von Bargen E, Patterson D. Cost utility of the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(3):150–3. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000159.CrossRef

43.

Seklehner S, Laudano MA, Te AE, Kaplan SA, Chughtai B, Lee RK. A cost-effectiveness analysis of retropubic midurethral sling versus transobturator midurethral sling for female stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2014;33(8):1186–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22483.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Lier D, Ross S, Tang S, Robert M, Jacobs P. Trans-obturator tape compared with tension-free vaginal tape in the surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence: a cost utility analysis. BJOG. 2011;118(5):550–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02845.x.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Lier D, Robert M, Tang S, Ross S. Surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence-trans-obturator tape compared with tension-free vaginal tape-5-year follow up: an economic evaluation. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;10:10. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.CrossRef

46.

Richardson ML, Elliott CS, Shaw JG, Comiter CV, Chen B, Sokol ER. To sling or not to sling at time of abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Urol. 2013;190(4):1306–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.03.046.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Richardson ML, Sokol ER. A cost-effectiveness analysis of conservative versus surgical management for the initial treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(5):565.e1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.07.006.CrossRef

48.

Sand PK, Owens GM, Black EJ, Anderson LH, Martinson MS. Cost effectiveness of radiofrequency microremodeling for stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(4):517–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2230-8.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Kumar S, Ghildayal N, Ghildayal N. Markov chain decision model for urinary incontinence procedures. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2017;30(2):187–202. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-03-2016-0034.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Pynnä K, Vuorela P, Lodenius L, Paavonen J, Roine RP, Räsänen P. Cost-effectiveness of hysterectomy for benign gynecological conditions: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014;93(3):225–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12299.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Barbieri M, Drummond M, Willke R, Chancellor J, Jolain B, Towse A. Variability of cost-effectiveness estimates for pharmaceuticals in Western Europe: lessons for inferring generalisability. Value Health. 2005;8(1):10–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.03070.x.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Birch S, Gafni A. Economics and the evaluation of health care programmes: generalisability of methods and implications for generalisability of results. Health Policy. 2003;64(2):207–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-8510(02)00182-3.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Oppong R, Jowett S, Roberts TE. Economic evaluation alongside multinational studies: a systematic review of empirical studies. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0131949. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131949.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Schulman K, Burke J, Drummond M, Davies L, Carlsson P, Gruger J, et al. Resource costing for multinational neurologic clinical trials: methods and results. Health Econ. 1998;7(7):629–38.CrossRef

55.

National Health Service. British National Formulary. NHS reference costs 2010–1. 2016. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/nhs-reference-costs.

56.

Travers B. A stay in a hospital bed in the UK costs £400 per day. Are we sure?. 2017. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/stay-hospital-bed-uk-costs-400-per-day-we-sure-bryce-travers/.

57.

Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. Br Med J. 1996;312:71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71.CrossRef

58.

Boehler CE, Lord J. Mind the gap! A multilevel analysis of factors related to variation in published cost-effectiveness estimates within and between countries. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(1):31–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X15579173.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

59.

Drummond M, Manca A, Sculpher M. Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:165–71.CrossRef

Title: Heterogeneity of cost estimates in health economic evaluation research. A systematic review of stress urinary incontinence studies
Authors: Sandra Zwolsman
Arnoud Kastelein
Joost Daams
Jan-Paul Roovers
B. C. Opmeer
On behalf of the WOMEN-UP Consortium: http://www.women-up.eu/consortium/
Publication date: 01-07-2019
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Keywords: Stress Incontinence
Care
Tension-Free Vaginal Tape
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 7/2019
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3814-0

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Heterogeneity of cost estimates in health economic evaluation research. A systematic review of stress urinary incontinence studies

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2019

Laparoscopic management of a large urethral leiomyoma

An Internet-based survey to evaluate the comfort and need for further pubovaginal sling training

Reintegration needs of young women following genitourinary fistula surgery in Uganda

Validation of the Turkish version of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-vaginal symptoms (ICIQ-VS)

Lack of uniformity among United States recommendations for diagnosis and management of acute, uncomplicated cystitis

Perioperative hemorrhagic complications in pelvic floor reconstructive surgery