Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Will King, Tara HomerORCiD, Professor Christopher HardingORCiD, Helen MossopORCiD, Dr Thomas Chadwick, Dr Alaa AbouhajarORCiD, Professor Luke ValeORCiD
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024.Objectives To estimate the cost-effectiveness of methenamine hippurate compared with antibiotic prophylaxis in the management of recurrent urinary tract infections. Design Multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Setting Eight centres in the UK, recruiting from June 2016 to June 2018. Participants Women aged ≥18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections, requiring prophylactic treatment. Interventions Women were randomised to receive once-daily antibiotic prophylaxis or twice-daily methenamine hippurate for 12 months. Treatment allocation was not masked and crossover between arms was allowed. Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary economic outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained at 18 months. All costs were collected from a UK National Health Service perspective. QALYs were estimated based on responses to the EQ-5D-5L administered at baseline, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 18 months. Incremental costs and QALYs were estimated using an adjusted analysis which controlled for observed and unobserved characteristics. Stochastic sensitivity analysis was used to illustrate uncertainty on a cost-effectiveness plane and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. A sensitivity analysis, not specified in the protocol, considered the costs associated with antibiotic resistance. Results Data on 205 participants were included in the economic analysis. On average, methenamine hippurate was less costly (−£40; 95% CI: −684 to 603) and more effective (0.014 QALYs; 95% CI: −0.05 to 0.07) than antibiotic prophylaxis. Over the range of values considered for an additional QALY, the probability of methenamine hippurate being considered cost-effective ranged from 51% to 67%. Conclusions On average, methenamine hippurate was less costly and more effective than antibiotic prophylaxis but these results are subject to uncertainty. Methenamine hippurate is more likely to be considered cost-effective
Author(s): King W, Homer T, Harding C, Mossop H, Chadwick T, Abouhajar A, Vale L
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: BMJ Open
Year: 2024
Volume: 14
Issue: 4
Print publication date: 01/04/2024
Online publication date: 29/04/2024
Acceptance date: 05/04/2024
Date deposited: 14/05/2024
ISSN (electronic): 2044-6055
Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group
URL: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-074445
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-074445
Data Access Statement: Data are available upon reasonable request. All data requests should be submitted to the chief investigator, CH (c.harding@nhs.net), for consideration. Access to de-identified data collected during the trial, alongside a data dictionary, may be granted to researchers upon approval of their study protocol and analysis plan, by a committee of the ALTAR team.
PubMed id: 38684270
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric
