Three‐year cost utility analysis of mini versus standard slings: A trial based economic evaluation

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveTo report on the cost‐effectiveness of adjustable anchored single‐incision mini‐slings (mini‐slings) compared with tension‐free standard mid‐urethral slings (standard slings) in the surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI).Patients and MethodsData on resource use and quality were collected from women aged ≥18 years with predominant SUI undergoing mid‐urethral sling procedures in 21 UK hospitals. Resource use and quality of life (QoL) data were prospectively collected alongside the Single‐Incision Mini‐Slings versus standard synthetic mid‐urethral slings Randomised Control Trial (SIMS RCT), for surgical treatment of SUI in women. A health service provider's (National Health Service [NHS]) perspective with 3‐year follow‐up was adopted to estimate the costs of the intervention and all subsequent resource use. A generic instrument, EuroQol EQ‐5D‐3L, was used to estimate the QoL. Results are reported as incremental costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost per QALY.ResultsBase case analysis results show that although mini‐slings cost less, there was no significant difference in costs: mini‐slings versus standard slings: £‐6 [95% CI −228–208] or in QALYs: 0.005 [95% CI −0.068–0.073] over the 3‐year follow‐up. There is substantial uncertainty, with a 56% and 44% probability that mini‐slings and standard slings are the most cost‐effective treatment, respectively, at a £20 000 willingness‐to‐pay threshold value for a QALY.ConclusionsAt 3 years, there is no significant difference between mini‐slings and standard slings in costs and QALYs. There is still some uncertainty over the long‐term complications and failure rates of the devices used in the treatment of SUI; therefore, it is important to establish the long‐term clinical and cost‐effectiveness of these procedures.