Three-year cost utility analysis of mini versus standard slings: A trial based economic evaluation.

Abstract

<h4>Objective</h4>To report on the cost-effectiveness of adjustable anchored single-incision mini-slings (mini-slings) compared with tension-free standard mid-urethral slings (standard slings) in the surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI).<h4>Patients and methods</h4>Data on resource use and quality were collected from women aged ≥18 years with predominant SUI undergoing mid-urethral sling procedures in 21 UK hospitals. Resource use and quality of life (QoL) data were prospectively collected alongside the Single-Incision Mini-Slings versus standard synthetic mid-urethral slings Randomised Control Trial (SIMS RCT), for surgical treatment of SUI in women. A health service provider's (National Health Service [NHS]) perspective with 3-year follow-up was adopted to estimate the costs of the intervention and all subsequent resource use. A generic instrument, EuroQol EQ-5D-3L, was used to estimate the QoL. Results are reported as incremental costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost per QALY.<h4>Results</h4>Base case analysis results show that although mini-slings cost less, there was no significant difference in costs: mini-slings versus standard slings: £-6 [95% CI -228-208] or in QALYs: 0.005 [95% CI -0.068-0.073] over the 3-year follow-up. There is substantial uncertainty, with a 56% and 44% probability that mini-slings and standard slings are the most cost-effective treatment, respectively, at a £20 000 willingness-to-pay threshold value for a QALY.<h4>Conclusions</h4>At 3 years, there is no significant difference between mini-slings and standard slings in costs and QALYs. There is still some uncertainty over the long-term complications and failure rates of the devices used in the treatment of SUI; therefore, it is important to establish the long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of these procedures.