Cost-effectiveness of pessary therapy versus surgery for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised non-inferiority controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pessary therapy as an initial treatment option compared with surgery for moderate to severe pelvic organ prolapse (POP) symptoms in secondary care from a healthcare and a societal perspective. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with a 24-month follow-up. SETTING: 21 hospitals in the Netherlands, recruitment conducted between 2015 and 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 1605 women referred to secondary care with symptomatic prolapse stage ≥2 were requested to participate. Of them, 440 women gave informed consent and were randomised to pessary therapy (n=218) or to surgery (n=222) in a 1:1 ratio stratified by hospital. INTERVENTIONS: Pessary therapy and surgery. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), a 7-point scale dichotomised into successful versus unsuccessful, with a non-inferiority margin of -10%; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) measured by the EQ-5D-3L; healthcare and societal costs were based on medical records and the institute for Medical Technology Assessment questionnaires. RESULTS: For the PGI-I, the mean difference between pessary therapy and surgery was -0.05 (95% CI -0.14; 0.03) and -0.03 (95% CI -0.07; 0.002) for QALYs. In total, 54.1% women randomised to pessary therapy crossed over to surgery, and 3.6% underwent recurrent surgery. Healthcare and societal costs were significantly lower in the pessary therapy (mean difference=-€1807, 95% CI -€2172; -€1446 and mean difference=-€1850, 95% CI -€2349; -€1341, respectively). The probability that pessary therapy is cost-effective compared with surgery was 1 at willingness-to-pay thresholds between €0 and €20 000/QALY gained from both perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Non-inferiority of pessary therapy regarding the PGI-I could not be shown and no statistically significant differences in QALYs between interventions were found. Due to significantly lower costs, pessary therapy is likely to be cost-effective compared with surgery as an initial treatment option for women with symptomatic POP treated in secondary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4883.

Effect of Pessary vs Surgery on Patient-Reported Improvement in Patients With Symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Pelvic organ prolapse is a prevalent condition among women that negatively affects their quality of life. With increasing life expectancy, the global need for cost-effective care for women with pelvic organ prolapse will continue to increase. Objective: To investigate whether treatment with a pessary is noninferior to surgery among patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse. Design, Setting, and Participants: The PEOPLE project was a noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted in 21 participating hospitals in the Netherlands. A total of 1605 women with symptomatic stage 2 or greater pelvic organ prolapse were requested to participate between March 2015 through November 2019; 440 gave informed consent. Final 24-month follow-up ended at June 30, 2022. Interventions: Two hundred eighteen participants were randomized to receive pessary treatment and 222 to surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was subjective patient-reported improvement at 24 months, measured with the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale, a 7-point Likert scale ranging from very much better to very much worse. This scale was dichotomized as successful, defined as much better or very much better, vs nonsuccessful treatment. The noninferiority margin was set at 10 percentage points risk difference. Data of crossover between therapies and adverse events were captured. Results: Among 440 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 64.7 [9.29] years), 173 (79.3%) in the pessary group and 162 (73.3%) in the surgery group completed the trial at 24 months. In the population, analyzed as randomized, subjective improvement was reported by 132 of 173 (76.3%) in the pessary group vs 132 of 162 (81.5%) in the surgery group (risk difference, -6.1% [1-sided 95% CI, -12.7 to ∞]; P value for noninferiority, .16). The per-protocol analysis showed a similar result for subjective improvement with 52 of 74 (70.3%) in the pessary group vs 125 of 150 (83.3%) in the surgery group (risk difference, -13.1% [1-sided 95% CI, -23.0 to ∞]; P value for noninferiority, .69). Crossover from pessary to surgery occurred among 118 of 218 (54.1%) participants. The most common adverse event among pessary users was discomfort (42.7%) vs urinary tract infection (9%) following surgery. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse, an initial strategy of pessary therapy, compared with surgery, did not meet criteria for noninferiority with regard to patient-reported improvement at 24 months. Interpretation is limited by loss to follow-up and the large amount of participant crossover from pessary therapy to surgery. Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register Identifier: NTR4883.

Female Sexual Functioning in Women With a Symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse; A Multicenter Prospective Comparative Study Between Pessary and Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Female pelvic organ prolapse (POP) has a negative effect on female sexual functioning and with an increasing life expectancy female sexual dysfunction caused by POP will be an arising global issue. AIM: Improvement in female sexual functioning, measured with the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire IUGA-Revised (PISQ-IR), 24-months after pessary or surgery, for both sexually active (SA) and sexually inactive women (NSA) presenting with POP. METHODS: A multicenter prospective comparative cohort study was conducted in 22 Dutch hospitals. Women referred with moderate to severe POP symptoms and POP stage ≥ 2 were included and chose either pessary therapy or surgical intervention. The PISQ-IR was filled in at baseline and 24-months, the delta of change was calculated and compared between both groups. Multivariate linear regression was performed to adjust for potential confounding factors in the association between the summary score of the PISQ-IR and therapy. OUTCOMES: Change in PISQ-IR between pessary and surgical intervention. RESULTS: The delta of change at 24-months was calculated for 198 women in the pessary group and 129 women in the surgery group. SA women in the surgery group reported statistically significant more improvement on the condition-specific (-0.19 95%CI -0.35; -0.03, P = .02), and condition-impact (-0.48 95%CI -0.69; -0.28, P < .001) domains as well as on the summary score (-0.15 95%CI -0.23; -0.08, P < .001) as compared to the pessary group. No significant differences between pessary and surgery were found on the domains for NSA women. After controlling for potential baseline confounders, surgery still had a statistically significant effect on the summary score (B = 0.08; 95%CI interval 0.007-0.15, P = .03). Women having surgery had 2.62 times higher odds of changing from NSA to SA than pessary therapy. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: SA women who clearly express that POP-related symptoms limit their sexual functioning should be counseled that surgery results in a more remarkable improvement. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Our strengths include the large sample size, long-term follow-up, the use of the PISQ-IR as a validated outcome tool evaluating both SA and NSA women, and this study reflects real-life clinical practice that enhances the external validity of the findings. A limitation of our study is the considerable proportion of non-responders at 24-months follow-up. CONCLUSION: Sexual function in SA women with POP is superior in case surgery is performed as compared to pessary therapy. van der Vaart LR, Vollebregt A, Pruijssers B, et al. Female Sexual Functioning in Women With a Symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse; A Multicenter Prospective Comparative Study Between Pessary and Surgery. J Sex Med 2022;19:270-279.