Cost-effectiveness analysis of minimally invasive surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia: implications for Japan's public healthcare system.

AIMS: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) represents a significant public health issue in Japan. This study evaluated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of water vapor energy therapy (WAVE) versus prostatic urethral lift (PUL) for men with moderate-to-severe BPH from a public healthcare payer's perspective in Japan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision analytic model compared WAVE to PUL among males in Japan. Clinical effectiveness and adverse event (AE) inputs were obtained from a systematic literature review. Resource utilization and cost inputs were derived from the Medical Data Vision database and medical service fee national data in Japan. Experts reviewed and validated model input parameters. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine how changes in the values of uncertain parameters affect the model results. RESULTS: Throughout patients' lifetimes, WAVE was associated with higher quality-adjusted life years (0.920 vs. 0.911 year 1; 15.564 vs. 15.388 lifetime) and lower total costs (¥734,134 vs. ¥888,110 year 1; ¥961,595 vs. ¥1,429,458 lifetime) compared to PUL, indicating that WAVE is a more effective and less costly (i.e. dominant) treatment strategy across all time horizons. Lifetime cost-savings for the Japanese healthcare system per patient treated with WAVE instead of PUL were ¥467,863. The 32.7% cost difference between WAVE and PUL was predominantly driven by lower WAVE surgical retreatment rates (4.9% vs. 19.2% for WAVE vs PUL, respectively, at 5 years) and AE rates (hematuria 11.8% vs. 25.7%, dysuria 16.9% vs. 34.3%, pelvic pain 2.9% vs. 17.9%, and urinary incontinence 0.4% vs. 1.3% for WAVE vs PUL, respectively, at 3 months). Model findings were robust to changes in parameter input values. LIMITATIONS: The model represents a simplification of complex factors involved in resource allocation decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Driven by lower retreatment and AE rates, WAVE was a cost-effective and cost-saving treatment for moderate-to-severe BPH in Japan compared to PUL, providing better outcomes at lower costs to the healthcare system.

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is an important public health issue in Japan, given its high prevalence and potential morbidity in a rapidly aging population. This study compared the clinical and economic outcomes of two minimally invasive surgical treatments for BPH (water vapor energy therapy [WAVE] vs. prostatic urethral lift [PUL]) for patients in Japan. Clinical effectiveness and adverse event (AE) information from published medical literature, and real-world health services and cost data from Japan, were used to estimate the impact of the two treatments. Compared to PUL, WAVE was found to provide better clinical outcomes and quality-of-life for patients whilst costing less to the Japanese healthcare system. Patients treated with WAVE had higher lifetime quality-adjusted life years vs. patients treated with PUL (15.564 vs. 15.388). Lifetime cost-savings for the Japanese healthcare system per patient treated with WAVE instead of PUL were estimated to be ¥467,863. The 32.7% cost difference between WAVE and PUL was predominantly driven by lower retreatment rates for WAVE (surgical retreatment rate was 4.9% vs. 19.2% for WAVE vs. PUL, respectively, at 5 years) and AE rates (AE rates at 3 months for WAVE vs. PUL, respectively, were: hematuria 11.8% vs. 25.7%, dysuria 16.9% vs. 34.3%, pelvic pain 2.9% vs. 17.9%, and urinary incontinence 0.4% vs. 1.3%). These findings provide evidence-based insights for clinicians, payers, and health policymakers to further define the role of WAVE for BPH in Japan.

Cost analysis of leuprorelin acetate in Japanese pre-menopausal breast-cancer patients: comparison between 6-month and 3-month depot formulations.

AIMS: The aim in this study is to evaluate economic value for leuprorelin acetate 6-month depot compared with leuprorelin acetate 3-month depot in Japanese pre-menopausal breast cancer patients from a societal perspective. METHODS: The cost analysis was conducted by estimating direct and indirect cost, and intangible costs associated with one 6-month injection compared with two 3-month injections. Claims data were used for the analyses of direct and indirect cost and Medical Fee Schedule Table for direct cost. Discrete choice experiments were conducted by web-based survey to determine the intangible costs. Another web-based survey was also conducted on premenopausal breast cancer patients with injections of leuprorelin acetate, to calibrate the results of discrete choice experiments. RESULTS: The medical costs saved for having one less injection in pre-menopausal breast cancer patients with leuprorelin acetate injection were JPY 6,183. The productivity loss saving was JPY 1,419. An estimation of intangible costs saved for having one less injection of leuprorelin acetate was JPY 58,430, which included the disbenefit due to pain (JPY 8,535), injection site reactions (JPY 44,051), waiting time (JPY 9,595), and subtracting value in medical consultation (JPY 3,751). The total cost saved for having one less injection was JPY 66,032. LIMITATIONS: The respondents from the internet panel provided by a survey company do not necessarily reflect a population of Japanese society. CONCLUSIONS: Leuprorelin acetate 6-month depot demonstrates a higher value than leuprorelin acetate 3-month depot through saving medical costs and loss of productivity, as well as intangible costs saved for having one less injection when treating pre-menopausal breast cancer patients. In the costs for treating with leuprorelin acetate, the percentage of intangible costs might not be negligible. The intangible costs will probably be actively evaluated to proceed to patient-centered healthcare in society.

Cost analysis of leuprorelin acetate in Japanese prostate cancer patients: comparison between 6-month and 3-month depot formulations.

AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the economic value for leuprorelin acetate 6-month depot compared with leuprorelin acetate 3-month depot from a societal perspective in Japanese prostate cancer patients. METHODS: The cost analysis estimated the reduction in direct and indirect costs as well as intangible costs saved by having one less injection. Claims data were used for the analyses of direct and indirect costs reduction. A discrete choice experiment based on a web-based survey estimated the monetary value of the intangible costs for one injection. Another web-based survey of prostate cancer patients, who had received treatment with leuprorelin acetate injections, was carried out to calibrate the results of the discrete choice experiment. RESULTS: Reductions in medical costs and loss of productivity for having one less injection in prostate cancer patients receiving leuprorelin acetate were JPY 5,670 and JPY 1,723, respectively. Intangible costs saved by using a 6-month depot formulation instead of a 3-month depot formulation for the injection of leuprorelin acetate were estimated to be JPY 19,872, including the values for a reduction in pain (JPY 3,131), injection site reactions (JPY 11,545), waiting time (JPY 9,479), and subtracting the value of medical consultation (JPY 4,283). The total cost reduction for having one less injection was JPY 27,265. LIMITATIONS: The respondents from the internet panel provided by a survey company are not necessarily a representative population of Japanese society. CONCLUSIONS: Leuprorelin acetate 6-month depot has an advantage in monetary value in the reduction in medical costs, loss of productivity, and intangible costs for having one less injection in prostate cancer patients compared with leuprorelin acetate 3-month depot. In the costs for treating with leuprorelin acetate, the percentage of intangible costs might not be negligible. The intangible costs will probably be actively evaluated to proceed to patient-centered healthcare in society.