IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0266824.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comprehensive analysis of clinical, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness outcomes of key treatment options for benign prostatic hyperplasia

Author

Listed:
  • Bilal Chughtai
  • Sirikan Rojanasarot
  • Kurt Neeser
  • Dmitry Gultyaev
  • Shuai Fu
  • Samir K Bhattacharyya
  • Ahmad M El-Arabi
  • Ben J Cutone
  • Kevin T McVary

Abstract

Treatment options for men with moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) have variable efficacy, safety, and retreatment profiles, contributing to variations in patient quality of life and healthcare costs. This study examined the long-term cost-effectiveness of generic combination therapy (CT), prostatic urethral lift (PUL), water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT), photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP), and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of BPH. A systematic literature review was performed to identify clinical trials of CT, PUL, WVTT, PVP, and TURP that reported change in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) for men with BPH and a prostate volume ≤80 cm3. A random-effects network meta‐analysis was used to account for the differences in patient baseline clinical characteristics between trials. An Excel-based Markov model was developed with a cohort of males with a mean age of 63 and an average IPSS of 22 to assess the cost-effectiveness of these treatment options at 1 and 5 years from a US Medicare perspective. Procedural and adverse event (AE)-related costs were based on 2021 Medicare reimbursement rates. Total Medicare costs at 5 years were highest for PUL ($9,580), followed by generic CT ($8,223), TURP ($6,328), PVP ($6,152), and WVTT ($2,655). The total cost of PUL was driven by procedural ($7,258) and retreatment ($1,168) costs. At 5 years, CT and PUL were associated with fewer quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than WVTT, PVP, and TURP. Compared to WVTT, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for both TURP and PVP were above a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY (TURP: $64,409/QALY; PVP: $87,483/QALY). This study provides long-term cost-effectiveness evidence for several common treatment options for men with BPH. WVTT is an effective and economically viable treatment in resource-constrained environments.

Suggested Citation

  • Bilal Chughtai & Sirikan Rojanasarot & Kurt Neeser & Dmitry Gultyaev & Shuai Fu & Samir K Bhattacharyya & Ahmad M El-Arabi & Ben J Cutone & Kevin T McVary, 2022. "A comprehensive analysis of clinical, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness outcomes of key treatment options for benign prostatic hyperplasia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-15, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0266824
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266824
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0266824
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0266824&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0266824?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0266824. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.