What question did this study set out to answer?

Evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of PureWick compared to traditional pads for urinary incontinence in non-acute settings.

April 11, 2026Advances in Therapy0 citationsOpen Access

Assessing the Value of PureWick™ for Female Urinary Incontinence in Non-Acute Settings: Multi-Country Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analyses

CRCarla Rognoni VAVittoria Ardito AYAnn Yates

Key Points

Evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of PureWick compared to traditional pads for urinary incontinence in non-acute settings.
Performed multi-country cost-effectiveness analysis
Analyzed budget impact in various healthcare settings
Assessed different treatment strategies involving PureWick and pads
PureWick plus pads was a dominant strategy over pads alone
Supports potential inclusion in continence-care pathways
Highlights need for ongoing real-world evidence collection

Abstract

Across the countries and care settings analyzed, PureWick combined with pads was a dominant strategy compared with pads alone. Policy makers should consider its inclusion in continence-care pathways while supporting real-world evidence collection to confirm long-term effectiveness, usage patterns and uptake assumptions.

Perguntar à IA

Bookmark

View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Rognoni et al. (Thu,) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69d9e58f78050d08c1b75c8b https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-026-03586-4

Perguntar à IA

Bookmark

View Full Paper