Increased use of 6-monthly gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist therapy for prostate cancer: a capacity and cost-minimization analysis for England.

AIMS: The National Health Service (NHS) in England is facing extreme capacity pressures. The backbone of prostate cancer care is gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) therapy, commonly administered every month or 3 months. We estimated the cost and capacity savings associated with increased use of 6-monthly GnRHa therapy in England. METHODS: A capacity and cost-minimization model including a societal perspective was developed (in Microsoft Excel) to generate cost and capacity estimates for GnRHa drug acquisition and administration for "Current practice" and for a "Base case" scenario. In the "Base case" scenario, 50% of patients who were receiving monthly or 3-monthly GnRHa therapy in "Current practice" switched/transitioned to a 6-monthly formulation. Cost/capacity estimates were calculated per patient per administration and scaled to annualized population levels. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of individual model assumptions: 1 tested the impact of drug acquisition costs; 2 and 3 tested the level of nurse grade and the time associated with treatment administration, respectively; 4 tested the rate of switch/transition to 6-monthly GnRHa therapy; and 5 tested differing diagnostic patterns following the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. RESULTS: Compared with "Current practice", the "Base case" scenario was associated with annual cost savings of £5,164,296 (148,478 fewer appointments/year and 37,119 fewer appointment-hours/year). The largest savings were in drug administration (£2.2 million) and acquisition (£1.6 million) costs. Annual societal cost savings totaled £1.4 million, mainly in reduced appointment-related travel, productivity and leisure time opportunity losses. Increased use of 6-monthly versus monthly or 3-monthly GnRHa therapy consistently achieved system-wide annual cost and capacity savings across all sensitivity analysis scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Our holistic model suggests that switching/transitioning men from monthly or 3- monthly GnRHa therapy to a 6-monthly formulation can reduce NHS cost and capacity pressures and the societal and environmental costs associated with prostate cancer care.

Men with prostate cancer often receive hormone injections to slow their cancer progression and relieve their symptoms. In England, most men who are prescribed hormone injections receive them once every month or 3 months; however, a 6-monthly option would reduce the number of injection appointments required each year. If some men who are receiving hormone injections every month or every 3 months switched to treatment once every 6 months, it could reduce the impact of prostate cancer treatment on their lives. It might also reduce the demands of prostate cancer treatment on the National Health Service (NHS). We developed a computer-based model to assess how NHS costs and nursing would be affected if half of the men in England who are receiving hormone injections every month or 3 months switched to injections every 6 months. According to our model, this change could save the NHS about £5.2 million each year. The main cost savings would be in reduced nursing costs. The change would also benefit the NHS because nurses would have almost 150,000 fewer injections to give, meaning that they could spend their time providing care elsewhere. Given that men would have to attend fewer appointments, they would also benefit from reduced time traveling, which would benefit the environment as well. Overall, these benefits to society would contribute about £1.4 million of savings per year. Given how stretched the NHS is in England, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic, opportunities to reduce time and staffing pressures are very important.

European Association of Urology Guidelines Office Rapid Reaction Group: An Organisation-wide Collaborative Effort to Adapt the European Association of Urology Guidelines Recommendations to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Era.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is unlike anything seen before by modern science-based medicine. Health systems across the world are struggling to manage it. Added to this struggle are the effects of social confinement and isolation. This brings into question whether the latest guidelines are relevant in this crisis. We aim to support urologists in this difficult situation by providing tools that can facilitate decision making, and to minimise the impact and risks for both patients and health professionals delivering urological care, whenever possible. We hope that the revised recommendations will assist urologist surgeons across the globe to guide the management of urological conditions during the current COVID-19 pandemic.