IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v2y2018i3d10.1007_s41669-017-0052-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost Effectiveness of Stapled Haemorrhoidopexy and Traditional Excisional Surgery for the Treatment of Haemorrhoidal Disease

Author

Listed:
  • Mary M. Kilonzo

    (University of Aberdeen)

  • Steven R. Brown

    (Surgery Sheffield Teaching Hospitals)

  • Hanne Bruhn

    (University of Aberdeen)

  • Jonathan A. Cook

    (University of Oxford)

  • Jemma Hudson

    (University of Aberdeen)

  • John Norrie

    (University of Aberdeen)

  • Angus J. M. Watson

    (Raigmore Hospital, NHS Highland)

  • Jessica Wood

    (University of Aberdeen)

Abstract

Objective Our objective was to compare the cost effectiveness of stapled haemorrhoidopexy (SH) and traditional haemorrhoidectomy (TH) in the treatment of grade II–IV haemorrhoidal disease from the perspective of the UK national health service. Methods An economic evaluation was conducted alongside an open, two-arm, parallel-group, pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial conducted in several hospitals in the UK. Patients were randomised into either SH or TH surgery between January 2011 and August 2014 and were followed up for 24 months. Intervention and subsequent resource use data were collected using case review forms and questionnaires. Benefits were collected using the EQ-5D-3L (EuroQoL—five dimensions—three levels) instrument. The primary economic outcome was incremental cost measured in pounds (£), year 2016 values, relative to the incremental benefit, which was estimated using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Cost and benefits accrued in the second year were discounted at 3.5%. The base-case analysis was based on imputed data. Uncertainty was explored using univariate sensitivity analyses. Results Participants (n = 777) were randomised to SH (n = 389) or TH (n = 388). The mean cost of SH was £337 (95% confidence interval [CI] 251–423) higher than that of TH and the mean QALYs were −0.070 (95% CI −0.127 to −0.011) lower than for TH. The base-case cost-utility analysis indicated that SH has zero probability of being cost effective at both the £20,000 and the £30,000 threshold. Results from the sensitivity analyses were similar to those from the base-case analysis. Conclusions The evidence suggests that, on average, the total mean costs over the 24-month follow-up period were significantly higher for the SH arm than for the TH arm. The QALYs were also, on average, significantly lower for the SH arm. These results were supported by the sensitivity analyses. Therefore, in terms of cost effectiveness, TH is a superior surgical treatment for the management of grade II–IV haemorrhoids when compared with SH.

Suggested Citation

  • Mary M. Kilonzo & Steven R. Brown & Hanne Bruhn & Jonathan A. Cook & Jemma Hudson & John Norrie & Angus J. M. Watson & Jessica Wood, 2018. "Cost Effectiveness of Stapled Haemorrhoidopexy and Traditional Excisional Surgery for the Treatment of Haemorrhoidal Disease," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 271-280, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:2:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-017-0052-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-017-0052-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-017-0052-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-017-0052-1?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:spr:pharmo:v:2:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-017-0052-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.