These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article 'Cost–effectiveness of overactive bladder treatments from a US commercial and payer perspective' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.Supplementary Table 1: Model inputs for efficacy.Aim: The cost–effectiveness of treatment options (anticholinergics, β3-adrenoceptor agonists, onabotulinumtoxinA, sacral nerve stimulation and percutaneous tibial stimulation [the latter two including new rechargeable neurostimulators]) for the management of overactive bladder (OAB) were compared with best supportive care (BSC) using a previously published Markov model. Materials & methods: Cost–effectiveness was evaluated over a 15-year time horizon, and sensitivity analyses were performed using 2- and 5-year horizons. Discontinuation rates, resource utilization, and costs were derived from published sources. Results: UsingMedicare and commercial costs over a 15-year time period, onabotulinumtoxinA 100U had incremental cost–effectiveness ratios (ICERs) gained of $39,591/qualityadjusted life-year (QALY) and $42,255/QALY, respectively, versus BSC, which were the lowest ICERs of all assessed treatments. The sensitivity analyses at 2- and 5-year horizons also showed onabotulinumtoxinA to be the most cost-effective of all assessed treatments versus BSC. Conclusion: OnabotulinumtoxinA 100U is currently the most cost-effective treatment for OAB.

These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article 'Cost–effectiveness of overactive bladder treatments from a US commercial and payer perspective' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.Supplementary Table 1: Model inputs for efficacy.Aim: The cost–effectiveness of treatment options (anticholinergics, β3-adrenoceptor agonists, onabotulinumtoxinA, sacral nerve stimulation and percutaneous tibial stimulation [the latter two including new rechargeable neurostimulators]) for the management of overactive bladder (OAB) were compared with best supportive care (BSC) using a previously published Markov model. Materials & methods: Cost–effectiveness was evaluated over a 15-year time horizon, and sensitivity analyses were performed using 2- and 5-year horizons. Discontinuation rates, resource utilization, and costs were derived from published sources. Results: UsingMedicare and commercial costs over a 15-year time period, onabotulinumtoxinA 100U had incremental cost–effectiveness ratios (ICERs) gained of $39,591/qualityadjusted life-year (QALY) and $42,255/QALY, respectively, versus BSC, which were the lowest ICERs of all assessed treatments. The sensitivity analyses at 2- and 5-year horizons also showed onabotulinumtoxinA to be the most cost-effective of all assessed treatments versus BSC. Conclusion: OnabotulinumtoxinA 100U is currently the most cost-effective treatment for OAB.