Relevance: The present paper presents, for the first time in Russia, a comparative pharmacoeconomic analysis of using mirabegron (Betmiga) to treat overactive bladder (OAB).
Materials and methods: Three medical technologies were evaluated: treatment of OAB with mirabegron 50 mg/day, solifenacin 5 mg/day and solifenacin 10 mg/day. In addition, the strategies of mirabegron and botulinum toxin type A were analyzed as a result of simulating the second-line treatment.
Results: When modeling for 1-year horizon, the lowest cost was found in mirabegron strategy, which was 16% lower than with solifenacin. When comparing the second line strategies using mirabegron and botulinum toxin type A, costs of mirabegron group were 61% lower. According to the selected performance criteria, mirabegron was more effective in comparison with other strategies. The findings of the budget impact analysis revealed that using mirabegron was preferable compared with solifenacin as the first line treatment, and compared with botulinum toxin type A as the second-line treatment. The analysis of cost-effectiveness and availability of technology showed growth when using mirabegron strategy; there was an increase in the efficiency of mirabegron strategy relative to solifenacin strategy, accompanied by cost reduction and, as a consequence, reducing the burden on the budget.
Conclusions: Thus, using mirabegron to treat OAB both as the first and the second line treatment is absolutely cost-effective and profitable medical technology.
Keywords: betmiga; cost-effectiveness; health-economic research; impact on budget; mirabegron; overactive bladder; randomized placebo-controlled trial.