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

To determine the cost-effectiveness of four urogynaecological treatments.

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.

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.

Overall, on comparison of the cost/QALY's, conservative treatment of urinary incontinence by a NCA was the most cost-effective.