A cost-utility analysis of 18F-fluorocholine-positron emission tomography imaging for localizing primary hyperparathyroidism in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Primary hyperparathyroidism historically necessitated bilateral neck exploration to remove abnormal parathyroid tissue. Improved localization allows for focused parathyroidectomy with lower complication risks. Recently, positron emission tomography using radiolabeled 18F-fluorocholine demonstrated high accuracy in detecting these lesions, but its cost-effectiveness has not been studied in the United States. METHODS: A decision tree modeled patients who underwent parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism using single preoperative localization modalities: (1) positron emission tomography using radiolabeled 18F-fluorocholine, (2) 4-dimensional computed tomography, (3) ultrasound, and (4) sestamibi single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). All patients underwent either focused parathyroidectomy versus bilateral neck exploration, with associated cost ($) and clinical outcomes measured in quality-adjusted life-years gained. Model parameters were informed by literature review and Medicare costs. Incremental cost-utility ratios were calculated in US dollars/quality-adjusted life-years gained, with a willingness-to-pay threshold set at $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year. One-way, 2-way, and threshold sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Positron emission tomography using radiolabeled 18F-fluorocholine gained the most quality-adjusted life-years (23.9) and was the costliest ($2,096), with a total treatment cost of $11,245 or $470/quality-adjusted life-year gained. Sestamibi single photon emission computed tomography and ultrasound were dominated strategies. Compared with 4-dimentional computed tomography, the incremental cost-utility ratio for positron emission tomography using radiolabeled 18F-fluorocholine was $91,066/quality-adjusted life-year gained in our base case analysis, which was below the willingness-to-pay threshold. In 1-way sensitivity analysis, the incremental cost-utility ratio was sensitive to test accuracy, positron emission tomography using radiolabeled 18F-fluorocholine price, postoperative complication probabilities, proportion of bilateral neck exploration patients needing overnight hospitalization, and life expectancy. CONCLUSION: Our model elucidates scenarios in which positron emission tomography using radiolabeled 18F-fluorocholine can potentially be a cost-effective imaging option for primary hyperparathyroidism in the United States. Further investigation is needed to determine the maximal cost-effectiveness for positron emission tomography using radiolabeled 18F-fluorocholine in selected populations.

Racial disparities in the utilization of parathyroidectomy among patients with primary hyperparathyroidism: Evidence from a nationwide analysis of Medicare claims.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with primary hyperparathyroidism, parathyroidectomy offers a chance of cure and mitigation of disease-related complications. The impact of race/ethnicity on referral and utilization of parathyroidectomy has not been fully explored. METHODS: Population-based, retrospective cohort study using 100% Medicare claims from beneficiaries with primary hyperparathyroidism from 2006 to 2016. Associations of race/ethnicity with disease severity, surgeon evaluation, and subsequent parathyroidectomy were analyzed using adjusted multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Among 210,206 beneficiaries with primary hyperparathyroidism, 63,136 (30.0%) underwent parathyroidectomy within 1 year of diagnosis. Black patients were more likely than other races/ethnicities to have stage 3 chronic kidney disease (10.8%) but had lower prevalence of osteoporosis and nephrolithiasis compared to White patients, Black and Hispanic patients were more likely to have been hospitalized for primary hyperparathyroidism-associated conditions (White 4.8%, Black 8.1%, Hispanic 5.8%; P < .001). Patients who were White and met operative criteria were more likely to undergo parathyroidectomy than Black, Hispanic, or Asian patients (White 30.5%, Black 23.0%, Hispanic 21.4%, Asian 18.7%; P < .001). Black and Hispanic patients had lower adjusted odds of being evaluated by a surgeon (odds ratios 0.71 [95% confidence interval 0.69-0.74], 0.68 [95% confidence interval 0.61-0.74], respectively) and undergoing parathyroidectomy if evaluated by a surgeon (odds ratios 0.72 [95% confidence interval 0.68-0.77], 0.82 [95% confidence interval 0.67-0.99]). Asian race was associated with lower adjusted odds of being evaluated by a surgeon (odds ratio 0.64 [95% confidence interval 0.57-0.71]), but no difference in odds of parathyroidectomy. CONCLUSION: Racial/ethnic disparities exist in the management of primary hyperparathyroidism among older adults. Determining the factors that account for this disparity require urgent attention to achieve parity in the management of primary hyperparathyroidism.

Screening for primary hyperparathyroidism in a tertiary stone clinic, a useful endeavor.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Primary hyperparathyroidism (1HPT) is associated with the risk of developing kidney stones. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of 1HPT amongst SF evaluated at a tertiary stone clinic and determine if it is cost-effective to screen for this condition. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 742 adult SF seen by a single urologic surgeon from 2012 to 2017 all of who were screened for 1HPT with an intact serum PTH (iPTH) and calcium. The diagnosis of 1HPT was based on the presence of hypercalcemia with an inappropriately elevated iPTH or a high normal serum calcium and an inappropriately elevated iPTH. The diagnosis was confirmed by surgical neck exploration. Published cost data and stone recurrence rates were utilized to create a cost-effectiveness decision tree. RESULTS OBTAINED: Fifty-three (7.1%) were diagnosed with 1HPT. 15 (28%) had hypercalcemia and inappropriately elevated iPTH, 38 (72%) had high normal serum calcium levels and inappropriately elevated iPTH. The potential diagnosis was ignored/missed by primary care physicians in 9 (17.0%) based on a review of prior lab results. Cost modeling was undertaken for 5, 10, 15, and 20-year intervals after screening. Based on our prevalence data, historical risks for recurrence and published cost data for stone treatments, cost savings in screening are realized at 10 years. CONCLUSION: These results support screening for primary hyperparathyroidism in patients evaluated in a tertiary referral setting.

Derivation of a cost-saving screening strategy for asymptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism.

BACKGROUND: Our study seeks to find a cost-saving screening strategy in a primary care population for diagnosing primary hyperparathyroidism based on peak serum total calcium level, age, and patient sex. METHODS: Laboratory data resulting from primary care office visits at our institution between January 2016 through December 2017 to evaluate patients who had at least 1 episode of hypercalcemia (≥10.5 mg/dL). For each serum calcium threshold, we calculated the percentage of patients who were found to have an increased parathyroid hormone level (≥65 pg/mL). We determined whether net cost savings could be achieved by screening hypercalcemic patients given their probability of primary hyperparathyroidism and expected cost savings from fracture risk reduction, given their sex and age. RESULTS: From 155,350 unique patients in the study period, a total of 2,271 had a minimum of 1 hypercalcemic lab value. After exclusion criteria, there were 1,326 patients of whom 27.5% had a parathyroid hormone level checked. Cost savings was established at a screening threshold of 10.5 for all patients until age 66 years for men and 69 years for women. For men aged 67-68 y and women aged 70-71 years, the optimal screening threshold was 10.8 mg/dl. CONCLUSION: Cost savings can be achieved by screening hypercalcemic patients with a life expectancy exceeding 16 years, with varying thresholds based on age and sex.

Parathyroidectomy for asymptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism: A revised cost-effectiveness analysis incorporating fracture risk reduction.

BACKGROUND: Recent data demonstrate decreased fracture risk after operation for asymptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism. We performed a revised cost-effectiveness analysis comparing parathyroidectomy versus observation while incorporating fracture risk reduction. METHODS: A Markov transition-state model was created comparing parathyroidectomy and guideline-based medical observation for a 60-year-old female patient with mild asymptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism. Costs were estimated using published Medicare reimbursement data. Treatment strategy outcomes, including risk of fracture, were identified by literature review. Quality adjustment factors were used to weight treatment outcomes. A threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year was used to determine cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulation were performed to examine the effect of uncertainty on the model. RESULTS: Parathyroidectomy was the dominant strategy (less costly and more effective) with an incremental cost savings of $1,721 and an incremental effectiveness of 0.185 quality-adjusted life years. Parathyroidectomy remained dominant when the relative risk reduction of fracture after operation was ≥14%, the cost of fracture was ≥$7,600, or the probability of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury was <12.5%. Monte Carlo simulation showed parathyroidectomy was cost-effective in 995/1,000 hypothetical patients. CONCLUSION: When fracture risk reduction is considered, parathyroidectomy for mild asymptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism is the dominant strategy when compared to observation.

Ethnic and economic disparities effect on management of hyperparathyroidism.

BACKGROUND: Successful parathyroidectomy requires advanced surgeon experience. We aim to examine population characteristics at risk of being managed by low-volume surgeons. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed utilizing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, 2004 to 2009. The study population included adult inpatients who underwent parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism. RESULTS: A total of 3,503 discharge records were included. Men, Hispanics, and those with Medicaid/Medicare health coverage were more likely to be managed by low-volume surgeons (P < .05 each). Low-volume surgeons were more likely to operate in rural (odds ratio [OR], 3.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.95 to 8.16; P < .001) or nonteaching hospitals (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.42 to 3.27; P < .001). Southern region of the United States had a high prevalence of low-volume surgeons compared with other regions (Southern: 51.3%, Northeast: 24.3%, Midwest: 25.6%, and West: 27.6%, P < .001). Operations by the low-volume surgeons associated with a higher risk of postoperative complications (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.97) and a hospital stay more than 2 days (OR, 7.12; 95% CI, 3.75 to 13.45; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Certain populations are at risk of management by low-volume surgeons based on their demographic and economic characteristics.

Comparison of minimally invasive parathyroidectomy under local anaesthesia and minimally invasive video-assisted parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism: a cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: Primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) origins from a solitary adenoma in 70- 95% of cases. Moreover, the advances in methods for localizing an abnormal parathyroid gland made minimally invasive techniques more prominent. This study presents a micro-cost analysis of two parathyroidectomy techniques. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 72 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive parathyroidectomy, video-assisted (MIVAP, group A, 52 patients) or "open" under local anaesthesia (OMIP, group B, 20 patients) for PHPT were reviewed. Operating room, consumable, anaesthesia, maintenance costs, equipment depreciation and surgeons/anaesthesiologists fees were evaluated. The patient's satisfaction and the rate of conversion to conventional parathyroidectomy were investigated. T-Student's, Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests and Odds Ratio were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: 1 patient of the group A and 2 of the group B were excluded from the cost analysis because of the conversion to the conventional technique. Concerning the remnant patients, the overall average costs were: for Operative Room, 1186,69 € for the MIVAP group (51 patients) and 836,11 € for the OMIP group (p<0,001); for the Team, 122,93 € (group A) and 90,02 € (group B) (p<0,001); the other operative costs were 1388,32 € (group A) and 928,23 € (group B) (p<0,001). The patient's satisfaction was very strongly in favour of the group B (Odds Ratio 20,5 with a 95% confidence interval). CONCLUSIONS: MIVAP is more expensive compared to the "open" parathyroidectomy under local anaesthesia due to the costs of general anaesthesia and the longer operative time. Moreover, the patients generally prefer the local anaesthesia. Nevertheless, the rate of conversion to the conventional parathyroidectomy was relevant in the group of the local anaesthesia compared to the MIVAP, since the latter allows a four-gland exploration.

Minimizing cost and maximizing success in the preoperative localization strategy for primary hyperparathyroidism.

Ultrasonography of the thyroid, parathyroid, and soft tissues of the neck should always be performed before parathyroidectomy. The most cost-effective localization strategies seem to be ultrasonography followed by four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) or ultrasonography followed by sestamibi ± 4DCT. These localization strategies are highly dependent on the quality of imaging. Surgeons should critically evaluate the imaging and operative data at their own institution to determine the best preoperative localization strategy before parathyroidectomy. Surgeons should communicate with the referring physicians about the best localization algorithms in the local area and become the decision maker as to when to obtain them.

Operative treatment of primary hyperparathyroidism: balancing cost-effectiveness with successful outcomes.

Parathyroidectomy is the most cost-effective treatment for hyperparathyroidism. Randomized prospective trials have shown no difference in cure rate between focused parathyroidectomy and bilateral exploration. Costs of the two techniques differ depending on the preoperative and intraoperative localization used, speed of the operation, ability to discharge the patient on the same day as the operation, cure rate, and complications. It may be less costly and more effective to use a policy of routine 4-gland exploration without the use of preoperative or intraoperative localization studies. The potential economic impact and the expected outcome of the various strategies should be formally evaluated.

Epidemiology of primary hyperparathyroidism.

Primary hyperparathyroidism is the third most common endocrine disorder. The epidemiology of this disorder is increasingly well understood, but significant limitations still exist in our understanding of the mortality, hospitalizations, incidence, prevalence, and costs associated with this condition. These limitations are due to the small number of population-based epidemiologic studies that have evaluated this condition. Further studies will be required to fully characterize the epidemiology of primary hyperparathyroidism.

Preoperative localization strategies for primary hyperparathyroidism: an economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Strategies for localizing parathyroid pathology preoperatively vary in cost and accuracy. Our purpose was to compute and compare comprehensive costs associated with common localization strategies. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate comprehensive, short-term costs of parathyroid localization strategies for patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Eight strategies were compared. Probabilities of accurate localization were extracted from the literature, and costs associated with each strategy were based on 2011 Medicare reimbursement schedules. Differential cost considerations included outpatient versus inpatient surgeries, operative time, and costs of imaging. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine effects of variability in key model parameters upon model results. RESULTS: Ultrasound (US) followed by 4D-CT was the least expensive strategy ($5,901), followed by US alone ($6,028), and 4D-CT alone ($6,110). Strategies including sestamibi (SM) were more expensive, with associated expenditures of up to $6,329 for contemporaneous US and SM. Four-gland, bilateral neck exploration (BNE) was the most expensive strategy ($6,824). Differences in cost were dependent upon differences in the sensitivity of each strategy for detecting single-gland disease, which determined the proportion of patients able to undergo outpatient minimally invasive parathyroidectomy. In sensitivity analysis, US alone was preferred over US followed by 4D-CT only when both the sensitivity of US alone for detecting an adenoma was ≥ 94 %, and the sensitivity of 4D-CT following negative US was ≤ 39 %. 4D-CT alone was the least costly strategy when US sensitivity was ≤ 31 %. CONCLUSIONS: Among commonly used strategies for preoperative localization of parathyroid pathology, US followed by selective 4D-CT is the least expensive.

Outcomes and economic analysis of routine preoperative 4-dimensional CT for surgical intervention in de novo primary hyperparathyroidism: does clinical benefit justify the cost?

BACKGROUND: Preoperative imaging in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism provides important localization information. Although 4-dimensional neck CT (4DCT) can precisely localize hyperfunctioning parathyroid tissue, the contribution of 4DCT to overall cost, operating room time, and hospital stay is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: Records of 535 patients with primary hyperparathyroidism who underwent parathyroidectomy at our institution from 1996 to 2010 were reviewed. All patients had preoperative cervical ultrasonography and sestamibi scanning, and most (78.9%) underwent preoperative 4DCT. A decision tree was constructed to compare extent of procedure, operating room time, length of stay, failure rate, and total cost of each strategy (with and without 4DCT). Costs were determined by 2010 Medicare reimbursement. RESULTS: For patients with and without preoperative 4DCT, respectively, mean operating room time (64.4 vs 61.4 minutes; p = 0.58) and failure rate (1.9% vs 4.4%; p = 0.12) were not significantly different. Length of stay was higher in the no-CT cohort (0.61 vs 0.23 days; p < 0.001). Patients with a preoperative 4DCT were significantly more likely to undergo a limited parathyroidectomy (90.3% vs 80.5%; p = 0.004). Mean cost of care per patient in the CT and no-CT cohorts was $6,572 and $6,306, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of routine 4DCT into the preoperative workup for surgical intervention in primary hyperparathyroidism does not appear to shorten operating room time or decrease failure rate significantly. However, preoperative 4DCT is associated with shorter hospital stays and improved rates of minimally invasive parathyroidectomy. This clinical benefit must be weighed against the increased cost associated with routine preoperative 4DCT.

Would scan, but which scan? A cost-utility analysis to optimize preoperative imaging for primary hyperparathyroidism.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism depends on accurate preoperative localization. This study examines the cost-utility of sestamibi in combination with single photon emission computed tomography (sestamibi-SPECT); ultrasound; and 4-dimensional computed tomography (4D-CT). METHODS: A decision tree was constructed for patients undergoing initial parathyroidectomy. Patients were randomized to 1 of 5 preoperative localization protocols: (1) ultrasound; (2) sestamibi-SPECT; (3) 4D-CT; (4) sestamibi-SPECT and ultrasound; and (5) sestamibi-SPECT and ultrasound and 4D-CT, if discordant (sestamibi-SPECT and ultrasound ± 4D-CT). From a societal perspective, all relevant costs were included. Input data were obtained from literature and Medicare. The incremental cost-utility ratio was determined in dollars per quality-adjusted life years ($/QALY). Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base-case, ultrasound was least expensive, with a cost of $6666, compared to $6773 (4-D CT); $7214 (sestamibi-SPECT and ultrasound ± 4D-CT); $7330 (sestamibi-SPECT); and $7371(sestamibi-SPECT and ultrasound). Sestamibi-SPECT and ultrasound ± 4D-CT were most cost-effective because improved localization resulted in fewer bilateral explorations. QALY were comparable across modalities. Compared to sestamibi-SPECT, ultrasound, 4D- CT, and sestamibi-SPECT and ultrasound ± 4D-CT resulted a win-win situation-costing less and accruing more utility. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the model was sensitive to surgery cost and diagnostic accuracy of imaging. CONCLUSION: In our model, sestamibi-SPECT and ultrasound ± 4D-CT were the most cost-effective methods, followed by 4D-CT and ultrasound. Sestamibi-SPECT alone was least cost-effective. Cost-utilities were dependent on the sensitivities of ultrasound and 4D-CT and may vary by institution.

[Intraoperative parathyroid hormone determination for primary hyperparathyroidism]. / Intraoperative Parathormonbestimmung beim primären Hyperparathyreoidismus.

Intraoperative parathyroid hormone measurement (IOPTH) has proved to be an important promoter for focused and minimally invasive parathyroidectomy procedures in primary hyperparathyroidism. IOPTH enables multiglandular disease to be excluded with a high degree of certainty at the time of operation. The choice of the cut-off value for IOPTH as the criterion for success is of utmost importance with respect to the prognosis for operative success (biochemical healing). Advantages and disadvantages of the variety of existing IOPTH success criteria are confusing and their assessment is contradictory. Particularly with respect to cost-benefit aspects the standard application of IOPTH as "biochemical frozen section" even in conventional open parathyroidectomy remains a matter of controversy. This article gives an up-date on current knowledge and provides practical guidelines for clinical use of IOPTH.

Surgery for asymptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism: proceedings of the third international workshop.

CONTEXT: An international workshop on primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) was convened on May 13, 2008, to review and update the previous summary statement on the management of asymptomatic PHPT published in 2002. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Electronic literature sources were systematically reviewed, addressing critical aspects of the surgical issues pertaining to the indications, imaging, surgical treatment, and cost-effective management of patients with PHPT. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The surgical group concluded that many patients with "asymptomatic" PHPT have neurocognitive symptoms that may be unmasked after successful parathyroidectomy. Furthermore, reduced bone density and increased fracture risk can be improved with parathyroidectomy. When PHPT is symptomatic, it may be associated with nephrolithiasis, increased cardiovascular disease, and decreased survival. Preoperative imaging studies should only be performed to help plan the operation, and negative imaging should never preclude surgical referral. Noninvasive localization studies including ultrasound and sestamibi scans are often employed, especially in anticipation of focused explorations. Invasive localization studies should be reserved for remedial explorations where noninvasive imaging has been unsuccessful. CONCLUSIONS: When performed by expert parathyroid surgeons, parathyroid surgery is safe, cost-effective, and associated with very low perioperative morbidity. Minimally invasive approaches to parathyroid surgery appear to be as effective as the classic bilateral cervical exploration approach.

Cost-effectiveness of scan-directed parathyroidectomy.

BACKGROUND: Concordant parathyroid localization with sestamibi and ultrasound scans allows minimally invasive parathyroidectomy (MIP) to be performed in patients with non-familial primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT). AIM: To investigate the financial implications of scan-directed parathyroid surgery. METHODS: Analysis of hospital records for a cohort of consecutive unselected patients treated in a tertiary referral centre. RESULTS: Two hundred patients (138F:62M, age 18-91years) were operated for non-familial PHPT between Jan 2003 and Oct 2007. MIP was performed in 129 patients, with a mean operative time was 35 +/- 18min. Some 75 patients were discharged the same day and the others had a total of 72 in-patient days. Bilateral neck exploration (BNE) was performed in 71 patients with negative/non-concordant scans. Mean operative time was 58 +/- 25min. Only nine patients were discharged the same day and a total of 93 in-patient days were used ( approximately 1.3days/patient). The estimated total costs incurred were pound215,035 ( approximately 290,000). These costs would have been covered by the National Tariff ( pound2,170 per parathyroidectomy) but were higher than those possibly incurred if all 200 patients would have undergone BNE without any radiological investigations ( pound166,000 approximately 224,100euro). CONCLUSION: Shorter operative time and day-case admission for MIP generate costs savings that compensate only partially for the additional costs associated with parathyroid imaging studies.

The cost-effectiveness of three strategies for the surgical treatment of symptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism.

INTRODUCTION: Modern surgical approaches to the treatment of primary hyperparathyroidism [unilateral neck exploration (UNE) and minimally invasive parathyroidectomy (MIP)] have become commonplace in recent years. However, the cost-effectiveness of these strategies has been questioned since the effectiveness of the gold standard, bilateral neck exploration (BNE), is well established. The objective of our study was to determine the incremental cost effectiveness of UNE and MIP compared with BNE for treatment of primary hyperparathyroidism (HPT). METHODS: Patients presenting to a tertiary endocrine surgical center for treatment of HPT over a 38-month period were included in the study. The primary measure of effectiveness was the rate of postoperative complications (hypocalcemia and paresthesias) observed in our cohort. A decision analytic model was constructed to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the UNE and MIP strategies compared with the BNE strategy. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate uncertainty around model-based estimates of costs and effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 94 patients (56 BNEs, 19 UNEs, and 19 MIPs) provided estimates of mean costs (BNE = $4524, UNE = $4784, MIP = $4961) and success rates (BNE = 0.91, UNE = 0.86, MIP = 0.93) for each treatment arm. The gold standard BNE strategy dominated the UNE strategy (lower cost, higher effectiveness) under most model formulations. The MIP strategy had an ICER of $28,439 per complication avoided, which is likely to be above societal willingness to pay to avoid primarily minor postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that within our institution, and in several different model formulations, bilateral neck exploration remains the cost-effective strategy for the treatment of primary hyperparathyroidism.

How should age at diagnosis impact treatment strategy in asymptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism? A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The National Institutes of Health consensus conference on asymptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) recommended several criteria for parathyroidectomy (PTX), including age <50 years. We hypothesized that a cost-effectiveness analysis would show PTX to be the optimal strategy for asymptomatic patients >50 years of age. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed comparing operative, observational, and pharmacologic treatments. Costs were estimated from a third-party payer perspective. Outcomes were weighted with utility adjustment factors, yielding quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Future costs and QALYs were discounted at 3%. Threshold analysis identified the optimal strategy at life expectancies ranging from 6 months to 75 years. Multivariate sensitivity analysis was completed with Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: PTX was optimal when life expectancy reached 5 years for outpatient PTX and 6.5 years for inpatient PTX. Observation was the optimal strategy at all shorter life expectancies considered. The pharmacologic treatment strategy was not optimal at any life expectancy. CONCLUSION: PTX is the optimal strategy for many patients with asymptomatic PHPT who are >50 years of age. PTX is cost effective for patients with a predicted life expectancy of 5 years (outpatient) or 6.5 years (inpatient). For patients with a shorter life expectancy, observation is the most cost-effective strategy.

Central laboratory versus point of care testing in intraoperative monitoring of parathyroid hormone levels: cost comparison.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the cost of central laboratory-based intraoperative parathyroid hormone (PTH) during parathyroid surgery compared with a point of care-based PTH testing system. METHODS: Based on a retrospective analysis of intraoperative PTH testing in 50 parathyroid surgeries, a cost comparison between the current testing system at a university-affiliated tertiary care facility (Elecsys 1010, Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland) and a theoretical model using the QuiCK-intraoperative intact PTH system (Nichols Institute Diagnostics, San Juan Capistrano, CA) was generated. RESULTS: The cost per surgery of central laboratory-based PTH testing was $129.15 compared with $550.98 for the point of care-based system. Costs were calculated accounting for the purchase price of equipment, cost of reagents and processing, and laboratory technician time. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first cost comparison study using a Canadian-based health care model for point of care versus central laboratory PTH testing and adds to a very limited number of cost comparison studies on this topic. This study provides evidence that in the setting of a tertiary care facility that has on-site laboratory facilities with dedicated staff, central laboratory-based PTH assays provide an efficient and cost-effective way of monitoring PTH levels during parathyroidectomy surgery.