title: Healthcare resource consumption for intermittent urinary catheterisation: cost-effectiveness of hydrophilic catheters and budget impact analyses.
abstract: This 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.
  
  
  
  A 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.
  
  
  
  Italian Healthcare Service perspective.
  
  
  
  Patients with spinal cord injury performing intermittent urinary catheterisation in the home setting.
  
  
  
  Incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios (ICER and ICUR) of hydrophilic coated versus uncoated catheters and associated healthcare budget impact.
  
  
  
  The 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).
  
  
  
  Considered 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.
authors.affiliation: Centre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CERGAS), Bocconi University, Milan, Italy.
authors.forename: Carla
authors.identifier: 0000-0002-6330-0591
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Rognoni
authors.affiliation: Centre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CERGAS), Bocconi University, Milan, Italy.|Department of Policy Analysis and Public Management, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy.
authors.forename: Rosanna
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Tarricone
mesh_terms: D002017:Budgets; D017281:Cost of Illness; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D006295:Health Resources / Q000191:economics / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006417:Hematuria / Q000191:economics* / Q000453:epidemiology; D006801:Humans; D057927:Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Interactions; D057928:Intermittent Urethral Catheterization / Q000191:economics* / Q000295:instrumentation; D007558:Italy / Q000453:epidemiology; D008390:Markov Chains; D064887:Observational Studies as Topic; D019057:Quality-Adjusted Life Years; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D013119:Spinal Cord Injuries / Q000191:economics; D014552:Urinary Tract Infections / Q000191:economics* / Q000453:epidemiology
keywords: budget impact analysis; cost-effectiveness analysis; hydrophilic coated catheters; intermittent urinary catheterisation; uncoated catheters