• Carla Rognoni and Rosanna Tarricone.
• Centre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CERGAS), Bocconi University, Milan, Italy.
• BMJ Open. 2017 Jan 17; 7 (1): e012360.

ObjectivesThis study presents a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing hydrophilic coated to uncoated catheters for patients performing urinary intermittent catheterisation. A national budget impact analysis is also included to evaluate the impact of intermittent catheterisation for management of bladder dysfunctions over a period of 5 years.DesignA Markov model (lifetime horizon, 1 year cycle length) was developed to project health outcomes (life years and quality-adjusted life years) and economic consequences related to patients using hydrophilic coated or uncoated catheters. The model was populated with catheter-related clinical efficacy data retrieved from randomised controlled trials and quality-of-life data (utility weights) from the literature. Cost data (EUR, 2015) were estimated on the basis of healthcare resource consumption derived from an e-survey addressed to key opinion leaders in the field.SettingItalian Healthcare Service perspective.PopulationPatients with spinal cord injury performing intermittent urinary catheterisation in the home setting.Main Outcome MeasuresIncremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios (ICER and ICUR) of hydrophilic coated versus uncoated catheters and associated healthcare budget impact.ResultsThe base-case ICER and ICUR associated with hydrophilic coated catheters were €20 761 and €24 405, respectively. This implies that hydrophilic coated catheters are likely to be cost-effective in comparison to uncoated ones, as proposed Italian threshold values range between €25 000 and €66 400. Considering a market share at year 5 of 89% hydrophilic catheters and 11% uncoated catheters, the additional cost for Italy is approximately €12 million in the next 5 years (current market share scenario for year 0: 80% hydrophilic catheters and 20% uncoated catheters).ConclusionsConsidered over a lifetime, hydrophilic coated catheters are potentially a cost-effective choice in comparison to uncoated ones. These findings can assist policymakers in evaluating intermittent catheterisation in patients with spinal cord injury.Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

24 keywords...

hide…