• Hannah Baker, Brooke Avey, Line Overbeck Rethmeier, Stuart Mealing, Marie Lynge Buchter, Márcio Augusto Averbeck, and Nikesh Thiruchelvam.
• York Health Economics Consortium, York, UK.
• Curr Med Res Opin. 2023 Feb 1; 39 (2): 319328319-328.

ObjectiveTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of single-use hydrophilic-coated intermittent catheters (HCICs) versus single-use uncoated intermittent catheters (UICs) for urinary catheterization.MethodsThe evaluation took a UK national health service (NHS) perspective. The population of interest were people using intermittent catheters, with either a spinal cord injury or multiple sclerosis. A Markov model was developed that estimated costs and clinical evidence over the lifetime of a hypothetical cohort and applied health-related quality-of-life estimates. Model inputs were sourced from published evidence, including a network meta-analysis to inform the treatment effect (reduction in catheter-associated urinary tract infections [CAUTIs]), and were supported by expert opinion. The model outputs included per-patient lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). Event counts were also produced.ResultsUsing HCICs instead of UICs could prevent seven CAUTI events per patient over a lifetime horizon (1.8 requiring secondary care). Overall, lifetime use of HCICs is £3,183 more expensive than use of UICs per patient. However, for these additional costs, 0.55 QALYs are gained. The ICER is £5,755 per additional QALY gained. Key drivers of the model results were identified and subject to sensitivity analyses. The results were found to be robust to parameter uncertainty.ConclusionHCICs are likely to be a cost-effective alternative to UICs, a result driven by substantial reductions in the number of CAUTIs. Their adoption across clinical practice could avoid a substantial number of infections, freeing up resources in the NHS and reducing antibiotic use in urinary catheter users.

14 keywords...

hide…