The cost of urogynaecological treatments: Which are more cost-effective?

Aims: To determine the cost-effectiveness of four urogynaecological treatments. Materials: Two prospective trials were performed in which 205 women with urinary incontinence underwent urogynaecological treatments. The cost incurred and the improvement in quality, of life (QOL) as a result of treatment was calculated as cost/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and then ranked in order of cost-effectiveness. Results: The Nurse Continence Advisor (NCA) group (N = 73) and the Urogynaecologist (UG) group (N = 72) both had significant improvements in leaks per week and incontinence score. QOL improvement was also similar (1.5% vs 1.2%). The economic data found a similar improvement in pad usage costs ($A2.90 vs $A3.52). The clinician costs were significantly lower for the NCA group ($A60.00 vs $A105.00) (P < 0.0001). The cost per QALY was significantly lower for the NCA group ($A28,009 vs $A35,312) (P = 0.03). Both groups had significant improvements in pad testing and leaks per week. The cure/improvement rates were also similar at three months (100% vs 89%). There was no significant difference in the improvement in QOL between the laparoscopic colposuspension (LC) and open colposuspension (OC) groups (2.09%, vs 1.54%). The economic data found a similar improvement in pad usage costs ($A11.74 vs $A16.17). The theatre costs were significantly higher for the LC group ($A403.45 vs $A266.94) (P < 0.0001), however the overall costs were significantly lower ($A4,668 vs $A6,124) (P < 0.0001). The cost/QALY was lower for the LC group ($A63,980 vs $A134,069), however this did not reach significance. Conclusions: Overall, on comparison of the cost/QALY's, conservative treatment of urinary incontinence by a NCA was the most cost-effective.