Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

An economic evaluation of the MultICath randomised controlled trial, comparing combined use of reusable and single-use intermittent catheters to single-use catheters only

Lookup NU author(s): Dr Thomas ChadwickORCiD, Nicola GoudieORCiD, Gillian WatsonORCiD, Dr Nina WilsonORCiD, Ruth Wood

Downloads


Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).


Abstract

© The Author(s) 2026.Objectives: Widespread adoption of single-use intermittent catheters for bladder drainage has led to increased costs and environmental waste. Reusable catheters could reduce both. The MultICath study showed that combined reusable and single-use catheters (Mixed-use) was non-inferior to single-use catheters for urinary tract infection and quality of life, but the economic impact is unknown. We aim to determine whether Mixed-use is cost-effective compared to Single-use only. Methods: Cost-utility and cost-consequence analyses were conducted alongside MultICath. The analysis took the United Kingdom payer perspective, using individual patient-level data of the 578 randomised (1:1) trial participants over 12 months. Costs included catheter and cleaning costs, antibiotic costs, and health-related visit costs. Outcomes were measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs), estimated from EQ-5D-5L data. Incremental, sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: Mixed-use participants used on average 902 (95% CI 755.13; 1049.31) fewer single-use catheters per annum than Single-use participants. Mixed-use was cost-effective in all analyses. Base-case annual incremental cost savings were -£1348.82 (95% CI -1939.98; -757.65) whilst incremental QALYs were negligible (-0.001; [-0.026; 0.024]). These estimates produced a positive net monetary benefit of £1328.82 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000. The probability of Mixed-use being cost-effective was never below 96.6%. The primary limitation was differential withdrawal rates between groups, accounted for in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Mixed-use is cost-effective for the UK National Health Service, and provision of reusable catheters should be considered. These findings are also relevant for other health services worldwide with high single-use catheter costs.


Publication metadata

Author(s): McCloskey S, Sach TH, Macaulay M, Avery MR, Chadwick TJ, Clancy B, Dickson S, Goudie N, Guerrero K, Hagen S, Murphy C, Watson GC, Wilson N, Wood R, Fader M

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

Year: 2026

Volume: 24

Issue: 1

Online publication date: 09/05/2026

Acceptance date: 22/04/2026

Date deposited: 08/06/2026

ISSN (electronic): 1478-7547

Publisher: BioMed Central Ltd

URL: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-026-00750-z

DOI: 10.1186/s12962-026-00750-z

Data Access Statement: Consent was not obtained from participants for data sharing. Authors will consider reasonable request to make relevant anonymised participant level data available.


Altmetrics

Altmetrics provided by Altmetric


Funding

Funder referenceFunder name
National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)

Share