Health economics perspective of fesoterodine, tolterodine or solifenacin as first-time therapy for overactive bladder syndrome in the primary care setting in Spain
Sicras-Mainar A, Rejas J, Navarro-Artieda R, Aguado-Jodar A, Ruiz-Torrejón A, Ibáñez-Nolla J, Kvasz M. BMC Urol. 2013 Oct 21;13(1):51. [Epub ahead of print]


BACKGROUND: Overactive bladder (OAB) is associated with high healthcare costs, which may be partially driven by drug treatment. There is little comparative data on antimuscarinic drugs with respect to resource use and costs. This study was conducted to address this gap and the growing need for naturalistic studies comparing health economics outcomes in adult patients with OAB syndrome initiating treatment with different antimuscarinic drugs in a primary care setting in Spain.

METHODS: Medical records from the databases of primary healthcare centres in three locations in Spain were assessed retrospectively. Men and women >=18 years of age who initiated treatment with fesoterodine, tolterodine or solifenacin for OAB between 2008 and 2010 were followed for 52 weeks. Healthcare resource utilization and related costs in the Spanish National Health System were compared. Comparisons among drugs were made using multivariate general linear models adjusted for location, age, sex, time since diagnosis, Charlson comorbidity index, and medication possession ratio.

RESULTS: A total of 1,971 medical records of patients (58.3% women; mean age, 70.1 [SD:10.6] years) initiating treatment with fesoterodine (n = 302), solifenacin (n = 952) or tolterodine (n = 717) were examined. Annual mean cost per patient was [euro sign]1798 (95% CI: [euro sign]1745; [euro sign]1848). Adjusted mean (95% bootstrap CI) healthcare costs were significantly lower in patients receiving fesoterodine ([euro sign]1639 [1542; 1725]) compared with solifenacin ([euro sign]1780 [[euro sign]1699; [euro sign]1854], P = 0.022) or tolterodine ([euro sign]1893 [[euro sign]1815; [euro sign]1969], P = 0.001). Cost differences occurred because of significantly fewer medical visits, and less use of absorbent products and OAB-related concomitant medication in the fesoterodine group.

CONCLUSIONS: Compared with solifenacin and tolterodine, fesoterodine was a cost-saving therapy for treatment of OAB in the primary care setting in Spain.