Supplementary table: Cost–effectiveness of overactive bladder treatments from a US commercial and payer perspective

<b>These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article '</b><b>Cost–effectiveness of overactive bladder </b><b>treatments from a US commercial </b><b>and payer perspective</b><b>' published in the</b><b> </b><b><i>Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research</i></b><b>.</b><b>Supplementary Table 1:</b> Model inputs for efficacy.<b>Aim:</b> The cost–effectiveness of treatment options (anticholinergics, β3-adrenoceptor agonists, onabotulinumtoxinA, sacral nerve stimulation and percutaneous tibial stimulation [the latter two including new rechargeable neurostimulators]) for the management of overactive bladder (OAB) were compared with best supportive care (BSC) using a previously published Markov model. <b>Materials &amp; </b><b>methods:</b> Cost–effectiveness was evaluated over a 15-year time horizon, and sensitivity analyses were performed using 2- and 5-year horizons. Discontinuation rates, resource utilization, and costs were derived from published sources. <b>Results:</b> UsingMedicare and commercial costs over a 15-year time period, onabotulinumtoxinA 100U had incremental cost–effectiveness ratios (ICERs) gained of $39,591/qualityadjusted life-year (QALY) and $42,255/QALY, respectively, versus BSC, which were the lowest ICERs of all assessed treatments. The sensitivity analyses at 2- and 5-year horizons also showed onabotulinumtoxinA to be the most cost-effective of all assessed treatments versus BSC. <b>Conclusion:</b> OnabotulinumtoxinA 100U is currently the most cost-effective treatment for OAB.