Transurethral water vapor therapy for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia: a cost-minimization and budget impact analysis from an Italian healthcare perspective

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the costs and budget impact of adopting water vapor thermal therapy with the Rezūm™ System, for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), from an Italian hospital healthcare perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model (4-year time horizon, 3-month cycle length), developed to support a submission to the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England, was adapted to an Italian payer perspective. A cost minimization analysis was conducted, assuming equal efficacy between both therapies. Net difference in costs per patient was reported, considering procedure, adverse events and retreatment costs. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses considered the uncertainty of the results. Population data and market share distribution assumptions were applied to a cohort of Italian patients treated in one year to report the budget and capacity impact of increased use of Rezūm.

RESULTS

Over 4 years, the costs per patient with Rezūm were €2072 compared to €2836 with TURP, resulting in net savings of €764. Sensitivity analyses showed that this conclusion was robust. Replacing 10% of TURP procedures with Rezūm generates cost-savings of € 7,139,549 over 4 years and saves 4671 theatre hours and 26,856 bed days in one year. Replacing 30% of BPH surgical procedures with Rezūm generates cost-savings to € 21,418,647 over 4 years, saves 14,012 theatre hours and 80,567 bed-days in one year.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis demonstrates that Rezūm is highly likely to be cost-saving compared to TURP from an Italian hospital healthcare perspective.

Breathing Synchronised Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation with Inspire for Untreated Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnoea/Hypopnoea Syndrome: A Simulated Cost-Utility Analysis from a National Health Service Perspective

BACKGROUND

Hypoglossal nerve stimulation (HNS) with Inspire is a novel treatment indicated for moderate or severe obstructive sleep apnoea/hypopnoea syndrome (OSAHS), intolerant to or unable to be treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of treating moderate or severe OSAHS, in patients intolerant to CPAP, with HNS, compared with standard care, from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

METHODS

A cohort state transition model was developed to compare HNS with Inspire with no treatment in UK adult patients with moderate or severe OSAHS who have previously tried and have not responded to CPAP therapy. Published literature was applied in the model to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; 2019 Great British pounds per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained), from an NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective, over a cohort's lifetime.

RESULTS

The model base-case predicts that patients undergoing HNS will incur lifetime costs of £65,026 compared with £36,727 among untreated patients. The HNS cohort would gain 12.72 QALYs compared with 11.15 QALYs in the no-treatment arm. The ICER of treating severe OSAHS with HNS is therefore estimated to be £17,989 per QALYs gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that at a threshold of £30,000/QALY, HNS has a 69% probability of being cost effective. Limitations of the model include uncertainty around the utility data that were not sourced directly from HNS clinical trials. There is further uncertainty in the relationship between change in the Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI) and reduction in ischaemic heart disease and stroke because of difficulty capturing the reduction in risk over a long time horizon in studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Over a patient's lifetime, HNS with Inspire is expected to be cost effective when compared with no treatment in patients with severe OSAHS who have tried and have not responded to CPAP, from an NHS perspective.

Analysis Estimating the Potential Cost Impact of Utilizing Flash Glucose Monitoring with Optional Alarms in Swedish Adults with Diabetes with Impaired Awareness of Hypoglycaemia, Using Intensive Insulin

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this analysis was to estimate the costs associated with using flash glucose monitoring with optional alarms as a replacement for either traditional continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or routine self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in adults with diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH) who use intensified insulin therapy, from a Swedish payer perspective, applying assumptions to simulate hypothetical scenarios.

METHODS

A simple two-state cohort Markov model was used to calculate the cost per patient treated over a 3-year period, capturing the risk of severe hypoglycaemic events requiring medical assistance and non-adherence using quarterly Markov cycles. The costs considered were those for glucose monitoring and resource use to treat severe hypoglycaemic events. Cost inputs were sourced from Swedish price lists, manufacturer data and resource use reported in the control arm of the HypoDE study. Targeted literature searches were run in PubMed to source the clinical inputs. Uncertainty in the model was considered through one-way sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis.

RESULTS

Over 3 years, flash monitoring with optional alarms resulted in potential cost-savings of Swedish krona (SEK) 7708 and SEK 69,908 per patient when compared to routine SMBG or CGM respectively. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were largely supportive of this conclusion with respect to SMBG, and large cost-savings were consistent across all sensitivity and scenario analyses with respect to CGM.

CONCLUSION

Utilizing flash monitoring with optional alarms is potentially a cost-saving treatment strategy compared to routine SMBG or traditional CGM in adults with diabetes using intensive insulin and IAH from a Swedish payer perspective. Future studies in the IAH population will help to assess more precisely the relative cost impact of flash glucose monitoring with optional alarms compared with SMBG and traditional CGM.

Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion with Triangular Titanium Implants: Cost-Utility Analysis from NHS Perspective

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to identify the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (MI SIJF) surgery with titanium triangular implants for patients with sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain who have failed conservative management, compared to non-surgical management (NSM) from a National Health Service (NHS) England perspective.

METHODS

Over a time horizon of 5 years, a cohort state transition model compared the costs and outcomes of treating patients with MI SIJF to those of traditional NSM treatment pathways. The NSM arm included two treatments: grouped physical therapy and corticosteroid injections (PTSI) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Three different strategies were considered: (1) a stepped pathway, (2) patients split between PTSI and RFA, and (3) RFA only. The outcome measure was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), reported in 2018 British pounds per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to test the robustness of the model results.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing MI SIJF accrued total procedure-related and pain-management costs of £8358, while NSM treatment strategy 1 had total costs of £6880. The MI SIJF cohort had 2.98 QALYs compared to strategy 1 with 2.30 QALYs. This resulted in an ICER for MI SIJF versus strategy 1 of £2164/QALY gained. Strategy 2 of the NSM arm had lower costs than strategy 1 (£6564) and 2.26 QALYs, and this resulted in an ICER of £2468/QALY gained for MI SIJF. Strategy 3 of the NSM arm had lower costs than strategy 1 (£6580), and this resulted in 2.28 QALYs and an ICER of £2518/QALY gained for MI SIJF. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that at a threshold of £20,000/QALY gained, MI SIJF has a probability of being cost-effective versus NSM strategies of 96%, 97%, and 91% for strategies 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

CONCLUSION

MI SIJF appears to be cost-effective over a 5-year time horizon when compared to traditional NSM pathways in an NHS context.

Supported self-management for patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): an evidence synthesis and economic analysis

BACKGROUND

Self-management (SM) support for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is variable in its coverage, content, method and timing of delivery. There is insufficient evidence for which SM interventions are the most effective and cost-effective.

OBJECTIVES

To undertake (1) a systematic review of the evidence for the effectiveness of SM interventions commencing within 6 weeks of hospital discharge for an exacerbation for COPD (review 1); (2) a systematic review of the qualitative evidence about patient satisfaction, acceptance and barriers to SM interventions (review 2); (3) a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of SM support interventions within 6 weeks of hospital discharge for an exacerbation of COPD (review 3); (4) a cost-effectiveness analysis and economic model of post-exacerbation SM support compared with usual care (UC) (economic model); and (5) a wider systematic review of the evidence of the effectiveness of SM support, including interventions (such as pulmonary rehabilitation) in which there are significant components of SM, to identify which components are the most important in reducing exacerbations, hospital admissions/readmissions and improving quality of life (review 4).

METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched from inception to May 2012: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Science Citation Index [Institute of Scientific Information (ISI)]. Subject-specific databases were also searched: PEDro physiotherapy evidence database, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials. Ongoing studies were sourced through the metaRegister of Current Controlled Trials, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number database, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. Specialist abstract and conference proceedings were sourced through ISI's Conference Proceedings Citation Index and British Library's Electronic Table of Contents (Zetoc). Hand-searching through European Respiratory Society, the American Thoracic Society and British Thoracic Society conference proceedings from 2010 to 2012 was also undertaken, and selected websites were also examined. Title, abstracts and full texts of potentially relevant studies were scanned by two independent reviewers. Primary studies were included if ≈90% of the population had COPD, the majority were of at least moderate severity and reported on any intervention that included a SM component or package. Accepted study designs and outcomes differed between the reviews. Risk of bias for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Cochrane tool. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to combine studies where appropriate. A Markov model, taking a 30-year time horizon, compared a SM intervention immediately following a hospital admission for an acute exacerbation with UC. Incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years were calculated, with sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

From 13,355 abstracts, 10 RCTs were included for review 1, one study each for reviews 2 and 3, and 174 RCTs for review 4. Available studies were heterogeneous and many were of poor quality. Meta-analysis identified no evidence of benefit of post-discharge SM support on admissions [hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 1.17], mortality (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.54) and most other health outcomes. A modest improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was identified but this was possibly biased due to high loss to follow-up. The economic model was speculative due to uncertainty in impact on readmissions. Compared with UC, post-discharge SM support (delivered within 6 weeks of discharge) was more costly and resulted in better outcomes (£683 cost difference and 0.0831 QALY gain). Studies assessing the effect of individual components were few but only exercise significantly improved HRQoL (3-month St George's Respiratory Questionnaire 4.87, 95% CI 3.96 to 5.79). Multicomponent interventions produced an improved HRQoL compared with UC (mean difference 6.50, 95% CI 3.62 to 9.39, at 3 months). Results were consistent with a potential reduction in admissions. Interventions with more enhanced care from health-care professionals improved HRQoL and reduced admissions at 1-year follow-up. Interventions that included supervised or unsupervised structured exercise resulted in significant and clinically important improvements in HRQoL up to 6 months.

LIMITATIONS

This review was based on a comprehensive search strategy that should have identified most of the relevant studies. The main limitations result from the heterogeneity of studies available and widespread problems with their design and reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

There was little evidence of benefit of providing SM support to patients shortly after discharge from hospital, although effects observed were consistent with possible improvement in HRQoL and reduction in hospital admissions. It was not easy to tease out the most effective components of SM support packages, although interventions containing exercise seemed the most effective. Future work should include qualitative studies to explore barriers and facilitators to SM post exacerbation and novel approaches to affect behaviour change, tailored to the individual and their circumstances. Any new trials should be properly designed and conducted, with special attention to reducing loss to follow-up. Individual participant data meta-analysis may help to identify the most effective components of SM interventions.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001588.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.