Economic Value of the Transurethral Resection in Saline System for Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in England and Wales: Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Cost-Consequence Model.

CONTEXT: Monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (M-TURP) is the current UK surgical standard of care for benign prostatic hyperplasia, a condition estimated to affect >2 million men in the United Kingdom. Although M-TURP efficacy in prostate resection is established, potential perioperative complications and associated costs remain a concern. OBJECTIVE: To present up-to-date and robust evidence in support of bipolar transurethral resection in saline (TURis) as an alternative surgical option to M-TURP. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review (SR) of electronic databases (up to 2015) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TURis with M-TURP was conducted, followed by evidence synthesis in the form of a meta-analysis of hospital stay, catheterisation time and procedure duration, transurethral resection (TUR) syndrome, blood transfusion, clot retention, and urethral strictures. An economic analysis was subsequently undertaken from the UK National Health Service hospital perspective with costs and resource use data from published sources. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The SR identified 15 good-quality RCTs, of which 11 were used to inform the meta-analysis. TURis was associated with improved safety versus M-TURP, eliminating the risk of TUR syndrome and reducing the risk of blood transfusion and clot retention (relative risks: 0.34 and 0.43, respectively; p<0.05). TURis also reduced hospital stay (mean difference: 0.56 d; p<0.0001). The economic analysis indicated potential cost savings with TURis versus M-TURP of up to £204 per patient, with incremental equipment costs offset by savings from reduced hospital stay and fewer complications. CONCLUSIONS: The TURis system is associated with significant improvements in perioperative safety compared with M-TURP while ensuring equivalent clinical outcomes of prostate resection. The safety benefits identified may translate into cost savings for UK health services. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our review of bipolar transurethral resection in saline, the new prostate resection technique, indicates that it offers equal efficacy while reducing complications and length of hospital stay.

Determination of the most appropriate method for extrapolating overall survival data from a placebo-controlled clinical trial of lenvatinib for progressive, radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness models for the treatment of long-term conditions often require information on survival beyond the period of available data. OBJECTIVES: This paper aims to identify a robust and reliable method for the extrapolation of overall survival (OS) in patients with radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer receiving lenvatinib or placebo. METHODS: Data from 392 patients (lenvatinib: 261, placebo: 131) from the SELECT trial are used over a 34-month period of follow-up. A previously published criterion-based approach is employed to ascertain credible estimates of OS beyond the trial data. Parametric models with and without a treatment covariate and piecewise models are used to extrapolate OS, and a holistic approach, where a series of statistical and visual tests are considered collectively, is taken in determining the most appropriate extrapolation model. RESULTS: A piecewise model, in which the Kaplan-Meier survivor function is used over the trial period and an extrapolated tail is based on the Exponential distribution, is identified as the optimal model. CONCLUSION: In the absence of long-term survival estimates from clinical trials, survival estimates often need to be extrapolated from the available data. The use of a systematic method based on a priori determined selection criteria provides a transparent approach and reduces the risk of bias. The extrapolated OS estimates will be used to investigate the potential long-term benefits of lenvatinib in the treatment of radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer patients and populate future cost-effectiveness analyses.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Lurasidone Versus Aripiprazole in Adults with Schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: In 2014, lurasidone, an atypical antipsychotic, was approved for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. It is an alternative treatment option to aripiprazole, and when compared with aripiprazole, lurasidone was associated with improved symptom reduction and reduced risk of weight gain and relapse. We conducted a cost-utility analysis of lurasidone versus aripiprazole from the perspective of healthcare services, using Scotland and Wales as specific case studies. METHODS: A 10-year Markov model, incorporating a 6-week acute phase and a maintenance phase across three health states (discontinuation, relapse, death) was constructed. Six-week probabilities of discontinuation and adverse events were based on a published independent mixed-treatment comparison; long-term risks of relapse and discontinuation were from an indirect comparison. Costs included drug therapy, relapse, and outpatient, primary and residential care. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5 %. Utility estimates were taken from published literature, and cost effectiveness was expressed as total 10-year incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Lurasidone yielded a cost saving of £3383 and an improvement of 0.005 QALYs versus aripiprazole, in Scotland. Deterministic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that results were sensitive to relapse rates, while probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that lurasidone had the highest expected net benefit at willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20,000-30,000 per QALY. The probability that lurasidone was a cost-effective treatment strategy was approximately 75 % at all willingness-to-pay thresholds, with similar results being obtained for the Welsh analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that lurasidone would provide an effective, cost-saving alternative for the healthcare service in the treatment of adult patients with schizophrenia.

High-dose hemodialysis versus conventional in-center hemodialysis: a cost-utility analysis from a UK payer perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of high-dose hemodialysis (HD) versus conventional in-center HD (ICHD), over a lifetime time horizon from the UK payer's perspective. METHODS: We used a Markov modeling approach to compare high-dose HD (in-center or at home) with conventional ICHD using current and hypothetical home HD reimbursement tariffs in England. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the results. The main outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: Over a lifetime, high-dose HD in-center (5 sessions/wk) is associated with higher per-patient costs and QALYs (increases of £108,713 and 0.862, respectively) versus conventional ICHD. The corresponding ICER (£126,106/QALY) indicates that high-dose HD in-center is not cost-effective versus conventional ICHD at a UK willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 to £30,000. High-dose HD at home is associated with lower total costs (£522 less per patient) and a per-patient QALY increase of 1.273 compared with ICHD under the current Payment-by Results reimbursement tariff (£456/wk). At an increased home HD tariff (£575/wk), the ICER for high-dose HD at home versus conventional ICHD is £17,404/QALY. High-dose HD at home had a 62% to 84% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 to £30,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Although high-dose HD has the potential to offer improved clinical and quality-of-life outcomes over conventional ICHD, under the current UK Payment-by Results reimbursement scheme, it would be considered cost-effective from a UK payer perspective only if conducted at home.

The financial impact of increasing home-based high dose haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that high dose haemodialysis (HD) may be associated with better health outcomes and even cost savings (if conducted at home) versus conventional in-centre HD (ICHD). Home-based regimens such as peritoneal dialysis (PD) are also associated with significant cost reductions and are more convenient for patients. However, the financial impact of increasing the use of high dose HD at home with an increased tariff is uncertain. A budget impact analysis was performed to investigate the financial impact of increasing the proportion of patients receiving home-based dialysis modalities from the perspective of the England National Health Service (NHS) payer. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to investigate the 5 year budget impact of increasing the proportion of dialysis patients receiving home-based dialysis, including both high dose HD at home and PD, under the current reimbursement tariff and a hypothetically increased tariff for home HD (£575/week). Five scenarios were compared with the current England dialysis modality distribution (prevalent patients, 14.1% PD, 82.0% ICHD, 3.9% conventional home HD; incident patients, 22.9% PD, 77.1% ICHD) with all increases coming from the ICHD population. RESULTS: Under the current tariff of £456/week, increasing the proportion of dialysis patients receiving high dose HD at home resulted in a saving of £19.6 million. Conducting high dose HD at home under a hypothetical tariff of £575/week was associated with a budget increase (£19.9 million). The costs of high dose HD at home were totally offset by increasing the usage of PD to 20-25%, generating savings of £40.0 million - £94.5 million over 5 years under the increased tariff. Conversely, having all patients treated in-centre resulted in a £172.6 million increase in dialysis costs over 5 years. CONCLUSION: This analysis shows that performing high dose HD at home could allow the UK healthcare system to capture the clinical and humanistic benefits associated with this therapy while limiting the impact on the dialysis budget. Increasing the usage of PD to 20-25%, the levels observed in 2005-2008, will totally offset the additional costs and generate further savings.

Peritoneal dialysis and in-centre haemodialysis: a cost-utility analysis from a UK payer perspective.

BACKGROUND: With limited healthcare resources available, cost-effective provision of dialysis to patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is important. OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of varying levels of peritoneal dialysis (PD) use versus current practice among incident ESRD patients requiring dialysis. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of increasing uptake of PD to 39 and 50 % versus current practice of 22 % PD from a UK National Health Service perspective for the year of 2013-2014. A scenario with 5 % PD was also considered. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Five- and 10-year discounted total costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient for the current scenario (22 % PD) were £96,307 and 2.104, and £133,339 and 3.301, respectively. Use of PD in 39 % of patients resulted in 5- and 10-year total per-patient cost savings of £3,180 and £4,102 versus current usage alongside total per-patient QALY increases of 0.017 and 0.020. Use of PD in 50 % of patients resulted in 5- and 10-year per-patient cost savings of £5,238 and £6,758 versus current usage alongside per-patient QALY increases of 0.029 and 0.033. Thus, increasing use of PD was associated with marginally better outcomes and lower costs. Cost savings were driven by lower treatment costs and reduced transport requirements for PD versus haemodialysis. Reducing PD use was associated with higher costs and a small reduction in QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest increasing PD use among incident dialysis patients would be cost-effective, associated with reduced costs and potential modest improvements in quality of life.

Economic evaluation of BST-CarGel as an adjunct to microfracture vs microfracture alone in knee cartilage surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Knee cartilage damage is a common cause of referral for orthopedic surgery. Treatment aims to reduce pain and symptoms by repairing cartilage. Microfracture, the current standard of care, yields good short-term clinical outcomes; however, treatment might fail after 2-3 years. A Chitosan-Beta glycerolphosphate-based medical device (BST-CarGel) is used as an adjunct to microfracture and demonstrates improvements in quantity and quality of repaired tissue, potentially reducing the risk of treatment failure. This study aimed to establish the economic value of BST-CarGel vs microfracture alone in knee cartilage repair from the societal perspective, using Germany as the reference market. METHODS: A decision tree with a 20-year time-horizon was constructed, in which undesirable clinical events were inferred following initial surgery. These events consisted of pain management, surgery, and total knee replacement. Clinical outcomes were taken from the pivotal clinical trial, supplemented by other literature. Data and assumptions were validated by a Delphi panel. All relevant resource use and costs for procedures and events were considered. RESULTS: In a group of patients with all lesion sizes, the model inferred that BST-CarGel yields a positive return on investment at year 4 (with 20-year cumulative cost savings of €6448). Reducing the incremental risk of treatment failure gap between the device and microfracture by 25-50% does not alter this conclusion. Cost savings are greatest for patients with large lesions; results for patients with small lesions are more modest. LIMITATIONS: Clinical evidence for microfracture and other interventions varies in quality. Comparative long-term data are lacking. The comparison is limited to microfracture and looks only at costs without considering quality-of-life. CONCLUSION: BST-CarGel potentially represents a cost-saving alternative for patients with knee cartilage injury by reducing the risk of clinical events through regeneration of chondral tissue with hyaline characteristics. Since the burden of this condition is high, both to the patient and society, an effective and economically viable alternative is of importance.