Economic Impact of Mirabegron Versus Antimuscarinics for the Treatment of Overactive Bladder in the UK

Purpose Our objective was to estimate the economic outcomes of using mirabegron versus antimuscarinics in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder (OAB) from a societal perspective in the UK. Materials and Methods A Markov model was developed using Microsoft Excel®. The time horizon and cycle length are 12 and 1 months, respectively; and the hypothetical cohort size 100 patients. Antimuscarinic comparators are fesoterodine, oxybutynin extended release (ER) and immediate release (IR), solifenacin, tolterodine ER/IR, trospium ER/IR, darifenacin and flavoxate. Model inputs included real-world treatment patterns data, healthcare resource use (e.g. clinic visits) and direct and indirect costs (e.g. drug acquisition and productivity loss). Model outputs included patient disposition, healthcare resource use, drug acquisition costs and other treatment-related costs over a 1-year time horizon. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the key drivers of the model. Results In a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients, total annual costs per patient were lower with mirabegron than with all antimuscarinics (£1270.84 vs. 1321.71–1607.48). Healthcare resource use was lower with mirabegron than with all antimuscarinics (115 vs. 119–123 general practitioner visits; 173 vs. 178–185 specialist visits and 0.0042 vs. 0.0050–0.0060 surgical operations) and fewer work hours were lost (4017 vs. 5114–6990 [all per 100 patients]). Sensitivity analysis showed the model was sensitive to persistence and switching rates, although the impact on the overall results was minimal. Conclusions In the UK, using mirabegron to treat OAB may improve persistence and lead to reductions in switching treatment, healthcare resource utilization, productivity costs, and overall treatment costs versus antimuscarinics.