Cochrane M, Drake MJ, Worthington J, Frost J, Cotterill N, Fader M, McGeagh L, Hashim H, Lane A, Macaulay M, MacNeill S, Rees J, Ridd MJ, Robles LA, Sanderson E, Taylor G, Taylor J, Noble S. Cost-effectiveness of a primary healthcare intervention to treat male lower urinary tract symptoms: the TRIUMPH cluster randomised controlled trial.
BMJ Open 2024;
14:e075704. [PMID:
38296301 PMCID:
PMC10828877 DOI:
10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075704]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2023] [Accepted: 12/04/2023] [Indexed: 02/03/2024] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a primary care intervention for male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) compared with usual care.
DESIGN
Economic evaluation alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective with a 12-month time horizon.
SETTING
Thirty NHS general practice sites in England.
PARTICIPANTS
1077 men aged 18 or older identified in primary care with bothersome LUTS.
INTERVENTIONS
A standardised and manualised intervention for the treatment of bothersome LUTS was compared with usual care. The intervention group (n=524) received a standardised information booklet with guidance on conservative treatment for LUTS, urinary symptom assessment and follow-up contacts for 12 weeks. The usual care group (n=553) followed local guidelines between general practice sites.
MEASURES
Resource use was obtained from electronic health records, trial staff and participants, and valued using UK reference costs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated from the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Adjusted mean differences in costs and QALYs and incremental net monetary benefit were estimated.
RESULTS
866 of 1077 (80.4%) participants had complete data and were included in the base-case analysis. Over the 12-month follow-up period, intervention and usual care arms had similar mean adjusted costs and QALYs. Mean differences were lower in the intervention arm for adjusted costs -£29.99 (95% CI -£109.84 to £22.63) while higher in the intervention arm for adjusted QALYs 0.001 (95% CI -0.011 to 0.014). The incremental net monetary benefit statistic was £48.01 (95% CI -£225.83 to £321.85) at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence UK threshold of £20 000 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed a 63% probability of the intervention arm being cost-effective at this threshold.
CONCLUSIONS
Costs and QALYs were similar between the two arms at 12 months follow-up. This indicates that the intervention can be implemented in general practice at neutral cost.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
ISRCTN11669964.
Collapse