IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v5y2021i4d10.1007_s41669-021-00277-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Evaluation of Transperineal versus Transrectal Devices for Local Anaesthetic Prostate Biopsies

Author

Listed:
  • Edward C. F. Wilson

    (University of East Anglia)

  • Alice Wreford

    (University of East Anglia)

  • Priya Tamer

    (Cambridge Urology Translational Research and Clinical Trials Office)

  • Kelly Leonard

    (Cambridge Urology Translational Research and Clinical Trials Office)

  • Hannah Brechka

    (Cambridge Urology Translational Research and Clinical Trials Office)

  • Vincent J. Gnanapragasam

    (Cambridge Urology Translational Research and Clinical Trials Office
    Cambridge University Hospitals Trust
    University of Cambridge)

Abstract

Background Biopsy of the prostate for suspected cancer is usually performed transrectally under local anaesthesia in the outpatient clinic setting. As this involves piercing the bowel wall, the procedure is associated with a risk of infection. Recently, devices that facilitate transperineal biopsy approaches have been developed that avoid piercing the bowel and so should reduce the risk of infection. Objective The aim of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of transperineal versus transrectal ultrasound-guided local anaesthesia procedures for prostate biopsy from the perspective of the UK NHS and to estimate the value of further research in the area. Methods a) Decision tree and Markov model synthesising all relevant evidence estimating the life-time costs and QALYs accrued from each biopsy mode. b) Value of information analysis to predict the return from further research and thus guide future research efforts. Results Transperineal biopsy yields an ICER below £20,000 per QALY gained at a per-procedure device acquisition cost below £81, or £41 for cost-neutrality. These results are driven by differences in consumables cost, reduced cost of treating infections, and QALY gains associated with reduced infections. There is value in future research on the diagnostic accuracy of transperineal versus transrectal biopsies and the incidence of iatrogenic infection and sepsis; consideration should be given to enriching the patient population with men with intermediate-risk disease. Conclusions Transperineal biopsy devices may be cost effective compared with transrectal biopsy at per-procedure acquisition costs below £81 and cost-neutral if under £41. Future research is required to confirm or refute these findings, particularly randomised comparisons of the diagnostic accuracy and infection risks between the methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Edward C. F. Wilson & Alice Wreford & Priya Tamer & Kelly Leonard & Hannah Brechka & Vincent J. Gnanapragasam, 2021. "Economic Evaluation of Transperineal versus Transrectal Devices for Local Anaesthetic Prostate Biopsies," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 737-753, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:5:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-021-00277-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-021-00277-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-021-00277-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-021-00277-4?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:5:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-021-00277-4. 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.