과민성방광 환자 치료를 위한 항무스카린성 약물의 경제성 평가 - Solifenacin과 Tolterodine IR을 중심으로 -
Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Antimuscarinic Agents for the Treatment of Overactive Bladder- With Solifenacin and Tolterodine IR -
2
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Objectives: Overactive bladder(OAB), defined as ‘urgency, with or without urge incontinence, usually with frequency and nocturia’, is a major burden for patients and impairs quality of life. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of antimuscarinic agents for the treatment of overactive bladder including quality of life in societal perspective. Methods: A decision-analysis model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of solifenacin and tolterodine IR over 12 weeks. We used data from the published literature to develop the framework for the model. Resource utilization and costs were calculated with public institutional data and supplemented this information with clinical expert opinion, where necessary. Results: The expected costs per patient for solifenacin were 48,762 KRW less expensive than tolterodine IR over 12 weeks. Also, all outcomes including quality of life for solifenacin were more effective than tolterodine IR over 12 weeks. In conclusion, solifenacin dominates tolterodine IR and appears to be cost-effective options for the management of overactive bladder.
Abstract
Objectives: Overactive bladder(OAB), defined as ‘urgency, with or without urge incontinence, usually with frequency and nocturia’, is a major burden for patients and impairs quality of life. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of antimuscarinic agents for the treatment of overactive bladder including quality of life in societal perspective. Methods: A decision-analysis model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of solifenacin and tolterodine IR over 12 weeks. We used data from the published literature to develop the framework for the model. Resource utilization and costs were calculated with public institutional data and supplemented this information with clinical expert opinion, where necessary. Results: The expected costs per patient for solifenacin were 48,762 KRW less expensive than tolterodine IR over 12 weeks. Also, all outcomes including quality of life for solifenacin were more effective than tolterodine IR over 12 weeks. In conclusion, solifenacin dominates tolterodine IR and appears to be cost-effective options for the management of overactive bladder.
참고문헌 (12)
- "이규성, 한덕현, 오승준 등. “unpublished results"", ~
- 두진경, "성공적인 항콜린제 치료 종료 후 나타나는 과민성방광 증상의 변화: 전향적 연구", 대한비뇨기과학회지, 46(7), pp.713~718 (2005), 대한비뇨기과학회
- 김태형, "과민성방광의 개요 및 약물치료", 중앙의대지, 28(3), pp.143~149 (2003)
- 이중식, "과민성방광", 가정의학회지, 27(11), pp.646~651 (2006)
- Amarenco G, "European Psychometric Validation of the CONTILIFE: A Quality of Life Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence", European Urology, 43, pp.391~404 (2003)
- Coyne KS, "The validation of the patient perception of bladder condition (PPBC): a singleitem global measure for patients with overactive bladder", European association of urology, 49, pp.1079~1086 (2006)
- Chapple CR, "Solifenacin appears effective and well tolerated in patients with symptomatic idiopathic detrusor overactivity in a placebo and tolterodinecontrolled phase 2 dose-finding study", BJU Int, 93(1), pp.71~77 (2004)
- Garely AD, "Symptom Bother and Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes Following Solifenacin Treatment for Overactive Bladder: The VESIcare Open-Label Trial (VOLT).", Clinical Therapeutics, 28(11), pp.1935~1946 (2006)
- Appell RA, "Clinical efficacy and safety of tolterodine in the treatment of overactive bladder: a pooled analysis", Urology, 50, pp.90~96 (1997)
- Ko Y, "Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of antimuscarinic agents for the treatment of overactive bladder", Pharmacotherapy, 26(12), pp.1694~1702 (2006)
- 이유식, "과민성방광의 최신 지견", 여성건강, 2(1), pp.185~202 (2001)
- Noe L, "A Pharmacoeconomic model comparing two long-acting treatments for overacitve bladder", J manage Care Pharm, 8, pp.342~352 (2002)