Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 13, 2026

Evaluation of Biomaterials for Bladder Augmentation using Cystometric Analyses in Various Rodent Models
Published on: August 9, 2012
Cost analysis of interventions for antimuscarinic refractory patients with overactive bladder
Jonathan H Watanabe1, Jonathan D Campbell, Arliene Ravelo
1Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. knobby@u.washington.edu
Objectives:
To estimate average, initial, and cumulative procedure related costs from a US payer perspective extending up to 3 years for the overactive bladder (OAB) interventions: sacral neuromodulation (SNM), intra-detrusor botulinum toxin A (BoNTA), and augmentation cystoplasty (AC) for antimuscarinic refractory patients.
Methods:
Costs (2007 US dollars) were calculated using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) codes; Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) payments, and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Level II Codes extracted from the literature and from the SNM device manufacturer. CPT codes were converted to costs using the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Relative Value Unit (RVU) fee schedule. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate assumptions and uncertainty of results based on plausible variation in estimates of key cost drivers.
Results:
The initial treatment cost was $22,226, $1,313, and $10,252 for SNM, intra-detrusor injection of BoNTA, and AC respectively. The first-year cost was $23,614, $2626, and $11,637 respectively. Three years after initiating treatment, the cumulative cost was $26,269, $7651, and $14,337 respectively. Sensitivity analyses revealed that SNM persisted as the most costly intervention in all scenarios. The 3-year cumulative cost range produced by the sensitivity analyses for SNM, BoNTA, and AC was $25,384-$27,357, $4586-$11,476, and $12,315-$16,830, respectively.
Conclusions:
All estimates of cost endpoints for SNM were greater than those for BoNTA and AC. These cost estimates, when combined with data on outcomes and risks, are important components of a robust health care technology assessment of antimuscarinic treatment failure options.
Related Concept Videos
Cholinergic Antagonists: Therapeutic Uses
Respiratory Tract: Ipratropium, aclidinium, and tiotropium treat asthma, chronic bronchitis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). They protect against bronchoconstriction caused by irritants like cigarette smoke, sulfur dioxide, and ozone. They also help reduce nasopharyngeal secretions in common...
Cholinergic Antagonists: Pharmacological Actions
Gastrointestinal Effects: Antimuscarinics reduce gut contractions, increase gastric emptying, and slow intestinal transit. They partly inhibit gastric acid secretion...
Cholinergic Antagonists: Pharmacokinetics
Direct-Acting Cholinergic Agonists: Therapeutic Uses
Antiasthma Drugs: Muscarinic Receptor Antagonists
Antimuscarinic agents compete with ACh for the same binding site on the muscarinic receptors. By binding to these receptors, they inhibit the downstream effects of ACh and block the parasympathetic...
Indirect-Acting Cholinergic Agonists: Pharmacological Actions
At the neuromuscular junction, these agents work by inhibiting the breakdown of acetylcholine, allowing it to remain bound to the receptor and bind to nearby receptors. This process leads to repetitive firing of the endplate, causing muscle...
