Cost-effectiveness analysis of six therapies for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia

• Main Authors: Ulchaker JC, Martinson MS
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dove Medical Press 2017-12-01
• Series: ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research
• Subjects: prostate; benign prostatic hyperplasia; lower urinary tract symptoms; cost- effectiveness analysis
• Online Access: https://www.dovepress.com/cost-effectiveness-analysis-of-six-therapies-for-the-treatment-of-lowe-peer-reviewed-article-CEOR

James C Ulchaker,1 Melissa S Martinson2 1Department of Urology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, 2Technomics Research, LLC, Minneapolis, MN, USA Objective: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis from payers’ perspectives of six treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and to examine positioning of these modalities in the marketplace for the best use of health care funds and quality-of-life benefits for patients.Methods: The economic analysis was conducted with a Markov model to compare combination prescription drug therapy (ComboRx), minimally invasive therapies (MITs) including convective radiofrequency (RF) water vapor thermal therapy (Rezūm®), conductive RF thermal therapy (Prostiva®), and prostatic urethral lift (UroLift®), and invasive surgical procedures including photovaporization of the prostate (Greenlight® PVP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Effects assessed with International Prostate Symptom Score, adverse events, and re-treatment rates were estimated from medical literature; treatments effects were modeled using a common baseline score. Starting with each therapy, patients’ transitions to more intensive therapies when symptoms returned were simulated in 6-month cycles over 2 years. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for pairs of treatments; uncertainty in ICERs was estimated with probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Results: ComboRx was least effective and provided one-third of the symptom relief achieved with MITs. UroLift was similar in effectiveness to Prostiva and Rezūm but costs more than twice as much. The cheaper MITs were ~$900 more expensive than the cost of ComboRx generic drugs over 2 years. TURP and PVP provided slightly greater relief of LUTS than MITs at approximately twice the cost over 2 years; typically, they are reserved for treatment of more severe LUTS.Conclusion: The analysis evaluated the costs and symptom relief of six treatment options in the continuum of care from a common baseline of LUTS severity. Identification of treatments for LUTS/BPH that demonstrate cost-effectiveness and provide appreciable symptom relief is paramount as reimbursement for patient care moves from volume-based services to value-based services. Keywords: prostate, benign prostatic hyperplasia, lower urinary tract symptoms, cost-­effectiveness analysis, minimally invasive therapy