Economic Impact of Mirabegron Versus Antimuscarinics for the Treatment of Overactive Bladder in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our objective was to estimate the economic outcomes of using mirabegron versus antimuscarinics in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder (OAB) from a societal perspective in the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: . The time horizon and cycle length are 12 and 1 months, respectively; and the hypothetical cohort size 100 patients. Antimuscarinic comparators are fesoterodine, oxybutynin extended release (ER) and immediate release (IR), solifenacin, tolterodine ER/IR, trospium ER/IR, darifenacin and flavoxate. Model inputs included real-world treatment patterns data, healthcare resource use (e.g. clinic visits) and direct and indirect costs (e.g. drug acquisition and productivity loss). Model outputs included patient disposition, healthcare resource use, drug acquisition costs and other treatment-related costs over a 1-year time horizon. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the key drivers of the model. RESULTS: In a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients, total annual costs per patient were lower with mirabegron than with all antimuscarinics (£1270.84 vs. 1321.71-1607.48). Healthcare resource use was lower with mirabegron than with all antimuscarinics (115 vs. 119-123 general practitioner visits; 173 vs. 178-185 specialist visits and 0.0042 vs. 0.0050-0.0060 surgical operations) and fewer work hours were lost (4017 vs. 5114-6990 [all per 100 patients]). Sensitivity analysis showed the model was sensitive to persistence and switching rates, although the impact on the overall results was minimal. CONCLUSIONS: In the UK, using mirabegron to treat OAB may improve persistence and lead to reductions in switching treatment, healthcare resource utilization, productivity costs, and overall treatment costs versus antimuscarinics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".