What Is New with Rezum Water Vapor Thermal Therapy for LUTS/BPH?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Rezum® is a novel convection-based thermal therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) induced lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). This review provides an overview of its safety, efficacy, cost, and potential role in the paradigm of BPH/LUTS therapies. RECENT FINDINGS: Data regarding Rezum® stems primarily from one large randomized controlled trial of 197 patients with 4 years of follow-up. The efficacy and safety of Rezum® is further supported by 4 additional studies including 1 prospective pilot study, 1 crossover study, and 2 retrospective studies. Durable improvements in IPSS (47-60%), QoL (38-52%), Qmax (45-72%), and PVR (11-38%) were seen without causing deterioration of sexual function. Rezum® offers a cost-effective and safe approach to treating BPH/LUTS and should be considered as a possible first-line therapy for patients with moderate to severe symptoms.

[Cost analysis of GreenLight photoselective vaporization of the prostate versus standard transurethral resection of the prostate: Benefit of ambulatory care]. / Analyse des coûts de la photovaporisation prostatique au laser Greenlight versus résection transurétrale de la prostate : intérêt de la prise en charge ambulatoire.

PURPOSE: To compare the costs associated with GreenLight XPS 180W photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) for an outpatient versus standard transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) with a three nights hospitalization in a French private hospital. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective cost minimization analysis was performed between 2017 and 2019 in a French private hospital for the hospital stays associated with TURP and PVP procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The peri-operative cost-benefit assessment of the two procedures was analyzed from the establishment's point of view according to the micro-costing method. RESULTS: 871 surgical treatment for BPH had been performed during the period of the study, including 743 photoselective laser vaporization (85%). The average length of stay of patients undergoing TURP was 3,7 days versus 0,9 days for PVP including 64,7% ambulatory. The cost-benefit was more of 500€ per patient in favor of ambulatory PVP compared with TURP in conventional three nights hospitalization for level 1 hospital stays. CONCLUSION: In this private hospital center, ambulatory PVP seemed more cost-effective than TURP with a three nights hospitalization for a severity level 1 patient. The financial profit for the establishment was mostly due to reduction of the main length of stay and ambulatory care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

The cost-effectiveness of transurethral resection of the prostate vs thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate in the UNBLOCS randomised controlled trial for benign prostatic obstruction.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of the current 'gold standard' operation of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) compared to the new laser technique of thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) in men with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) within the UK National Health Service (NHS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The trial was conducted across seven UK centres (four university teaching hospitals and three district general hospitals). A total of 410 men aged ≥18 years presenting with either bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) or urinary retention secondary to BPO, and suitable for surgery, were randomised (whilst under anaesthetic) 1:1 to receive the TURP or ThuVARP procedure. Resource use in relation to the operation, initial inpatient stay, and subsequent use of NHS services was collected for 12 months from randomisation (equivalent to primary effectiveness outcome) using hospital records and patient questionnaires. Resources were valued using UK reference costs. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated from the EuroQoL five Dimensions five Levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire completed at baseline, 3- and 12-months. Total adjusted mean costs, QALYs and incremental Net Monetary Benefit statistics were calculated: cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty. RESULTS: The total adjusted mean secondary care cost over the 12 months in the TURP arm (£4244) was £9 (95% CI -£376, £359) lower than the ThuVARP arm (£4253). The ThuVARP operation took on average 21 min longer than TURP. The adjusted mean difference of QALYs (0.01 favouring TURP, 95% CI -0.01, 0.04) was similar between the arms. There is a 76% probability that TURP is the cost-effective option compared with ThuVARP at the £20 000 per QALY willingness to pay threshold used by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). CONCLUSION: One of the anticipated benefits of the laser surgery, reduced length of hospital stay with an associated reduction in cost, did not materialise within the study. The longer duration of the ThuVARP procedure is important to consider, both from a patient perspective in terms of increased time under anaesthetic, and from a service delivery perspective. TURP remains a highly cost-effective treatment for men with BPO.

In-hospital cost analysis of prostatic artery embolization compared with transurethral resection of the prostate: post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a post hoc analysis of in-hospital costs incurred in a randomized controlled trial comparing prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In-hospital costs arising from PAE and TURP were calculated using detailed expenditure reports provided by the hospital accounts department. Total costs, including those arising from surgical and interventional procedures, consumables, personnel and accommodation, were analysed for all of the study participants and compared between PAE and TURP using descriptive analysis and two-sided t-tests, adjusted for unequal variance within groups (Welch t-test). RESULTS: The mean total costs per patient (±sd) were higher for TURP, at €9137 ± 3301, than for PAE, at €8185 ± 1630. The mean difference of €952 was not statistically significant (P = 0.07). While the mean procedural costs were significantly higher for PAE (mean difference €623 [P = 0.009]), costs apart from the procedure were significantly lower for PAE, with a mean difference of €1627 (P < 0.001). Procedural costs of €1433 ± 552 for TURP were mainly incurred by anaesthesia, whereas €2590 ± 628 for medical supplies were the main cost factor for PAE. CONCLUSIONS: Since in-hospital costs are similar but PAE and TURP have different efficacy and safety profiles, the patient's clinical condition and expectations - rather than finances - should be taken into account when deciding between PAE and TURP.

Medical therapy versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic enlargement (BPE): a cost minimisation analysis.

PURPOSE: A cost minimisation analysis compares the costs of different interventions' to ascertain the least expensive over time. We compared different prostate targeted drug treatments with TURP to identify the optimal cost saving duration of a medical therapy for symptomatic benign prostatic enlargement (BPE). METHODS: The Evolution registry is a prospective, multicentre registry, conducted by the European Association of Urology Research Foundation (EAUrf) for 24 months in 5 European countries. Evolution was designed to register the management of symptomatic BPE in clinical practice settings in 5 European countries. Direct cost evaluation associated with prostate targeted medical therapies and TURP was also recorded and analysed. RESULTS: In total, 1838 men were enrolled with 1246 evaluable at 24 months. Medical therapies were more cost saving than TURP for treatment durations ranging from 2.9 to 70.4 years. Cost saving depended on both medication class and individual country assessed. Daily tamsulosin monotherapy was more cost saving than TURP for ≤ 13.9 years in Germany compared to ≤ 32.7 years in Italy. Daily finasteride monotherapy was more cost saving for ≤ 5.9 years in France compared to ≤ 36.9 years in Spain. Combination therapy was more cost saving for ≤ 5.9 years for Italian patients versus ≤ 13.8 years in Germany. CONCLUSIONS: BPE medical management was more cost saving than TURP for different specific treatment durations. Information from this study will allow clinicians to convey medical and surgical costs over time, to both patients and payors alike, when considering BPE treatment.

Photovaporization of the prostate with GreenLight™ laser 180 W XPS versus transurethral resection of the prostate with monopolar energy for the treatment of benign prostatic enlargement: a cost-utility analysis from a healthcare perspective.

PURPOSE: To assess the cost-utility of the photovaporization of the prostate (PVP) with GreenLight™ laser 180 W XPS compared to transurethral resection of the prostate with monopolar energy (M-TURP) for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) from a healthcare perspective in Colombia. METHODS: We designed a Markov model to compare four health states following treatment with either PVP or M-TURP to estimate expected costs and outcomes. We used the results of the only randomized clinical trial published to date comparing PVP versus M-TURP to estimate surgical outcomes, complications, re-operation and re-intervention rates. Time horizon was defined at 2 years with four cycles of 6 months each. Resource-use estimation involved a random selection of clinical records from a local institution and cost list from public healthcare system. Costs were obtained in Colombian pesos and converted to US dollars. Threshold was defined at three-times the Colombian gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) were used based on the utilities of the available literature. Uncertainty was analyzed with deterministic and probabilistic models using a Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: Patients who underwent PVP gained 1.81 QALYs compared to 1.59 with M-TURP. Costs were US$6797.98 and US$7777.59 for M-TURP and PVP, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$4452.81 per QALY, favoring PVP as a cost-effective alternative in our context. CONCLUSIONS: In Colombia, with current prices, PVP is cost-effective when compared to M-TURP for LUTS due to BPE for a 2-year time horizon.

Pharmacotherapy vs surgery as initial therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe benign prostate hyperplasia: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using a surgery, such as transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) or photoselective vaporisation of the prostate using greenlight laser (GL-PVP), as initial treatment for men with moderate-to-severe benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) compared to the standard practice of using pharmacotherapy as initial treatment followed by surgery if symptoms do not resolve. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We compared a combination of eight strategies involving upfront pharmacotherapy (i.e., α-blocker, 5α-reductase inhibitor, or combination) followed by surgery (e.g. TURP or GL-PVP) upon failure vs TURP or GL-PVP as initial treatment, for a target population of men with moderate-to-severe BPH symptoms, with a mean age of 65 years and no contraindications for treatment. A microsimulation decision-analytic model was developed to project the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of the target population over the lifetime. The model was populated and validated using published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were determined. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using a public payer perspective, a lifetime horizon, a discount rate of 1.5%, and a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50 000 (Canadian dollars)/QALY. Sensitivity and probabilistic analyses were performed. RESULTS: All options involving an upfront pharmacotherapy followed by TURP for those who fail were economically unattractive compared to strategies involving a GL-PVP for those who fail, and compared to using either BPH surgery as initial treatment. Overall, upfront TURP was the most costly and effective option, followed closely by upfront GL-PVP. On average, upfront TURP costs $1015 more and resulted in a small gain of 0.03 QALYs compared to upfront GL-PVP, translating to an incremental cost per QALY gained of $29 066. Results were robust to probabilistic analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery is cost-effective as initial therapy for BPH. However, the health and economic evidence should be considered concurrently with patient preferences and risk attitudes towards different therapy options.

GreenLight Laser for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: GreenLight photoselective vaporization (GL-PV) is now established in the treatment of benign prostatic enlargement. The present review outlines the available technical armamentarium and summarizes the current best evidence on functional and safety outcomes. Moreover, future technical developments and refinements are presented. RECENT FINDINGS: GL-PV has evolved to be the most commonly performed procedure, second to conventional transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for surgical management of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). On the basis of the data published in the randomized controlled Goliath study, GL-PV with 180-W technology is noninferior in terms of functional outcomes compared with TURP considering short and intermediate follow-up with a complication-free rate of around 80% after 24 months.The ongoing push towards high-power lasers can be explained by their more effective tissue ablative effect, leading to shorter operating times. Comparative analysis between high-power and low-power laser systems demonstrated similar retreatment rates and most institutions are, therefore, now performing 180-W GL-PV.Performed as an outpatient procedure, GL-PV is cost-effective with a low hospital re-admission rate. Plasma kinetic vaporization of the prostate (PKVP) has recently emerged as a potential contender in the field; also GreenLight enucleation of the prostate (GreenLEP) might be even more effective than GL-PV. SUMMARY: GL-PV appears to be a well tolerated surgical alternative for patients suffering from BPO. Long-term follow-up data from 120-W and 180-W laser systems are still pending. Potential competitors have recently been brought to the market and further trials and long-term data will show, whether GL-PV will stand the test of time. Regardless of technical specifications, surgeon's experience remains essential to achieve good functional and safety outcomes.

[Prospective evaluation of the direct costs of prostate enucleation by the HoLEP® laser during the learning curve period]. / Évaluation prospective des coûts directs de l'énucléation prostatique par le laser HoLEP® pendant la courbe d'apprentissage.

OBJECTIVE: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) has been shown to be effective in treating large prostates compared to prostate transurethral resection (TURP). There are no published data evaluating specifically the impact of the learning curve on the direct costs of HoLEP. The objective of this study was to evaluate the direct costs generated by the use of HoLEP laser during the learning curve period. METHOD: The costs of all medical devices (DM) and drugs used, pre- and post-operative parameters during surgery have been prospectively collected between March and October 2016. RESULTS: A total of 32 patients were included in the study with a mean age of 70.8 years and a mean prostate volume of 68.6 cm3. The mean cost of anesthesia was 39.0 € and that of drugs and DM used for surgery was 257.95 € but could reach 470.76 € in case of conversion to bipolar resection. The mean duration of enucleation and morcellation was 150minutes with a mean weight of enucleated specimens of 40.4g. The total mean duration of patient care was 197minutes at an estimated hourly cost of € 636. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some limitations, this study makes it possible to analyze the direct costs of the management of benign prostatic hypertrophy using HoLEP, an innovative surgical technique, and to specify that these costs are more related to bipolar conversion and voluminous adenomas especially during the learning curve. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.

The Continuing Story of the Cost-Effectiveness of Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate versus Transuretheral Resection of the Prostate for the Treatment of Symptomatic Benign Prostatic Obstruction.

BACKGROUND: In 2008, a UK assessment of technologies for benign prostatic obstruction concluded negatively about photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP), and the 2010 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance caused several UK institutions to abandon PVP. OBJECTIVE: To reassess the costs and effects of PVP versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) on the basis of most recent data. METHODS: The same model was used as in 2008. Transition probabilities were estimated using a Bayesian approach updating the 2008 estimates with data from two meta-analyses and data from GOLIATH, the latest and largest trial comparing PVP with TURP. Utility estimates were from the 2008 assessment, and estimates of resource utilization and costs were updated. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years gained, and costs are in UK pounds. The balance between costs and effects was addressed by multivariate sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: If the 2010 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence analysis would have updated the cost-effectiveness analysis with figures from its own meta-analysis, it would have estimated the change in quality-adjusted life-years at -0.01 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.05 to 0.01) instead of at -0.11 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.01) as in the 2008 analysis. The GOLIATH estimate of -0.01 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.02) strengthens the conclusion of near equivalence. Estimates of additional costs vary from £491 (£21-£1286) in 2008 to £111 (-£315 to £595) for 2010 and to £109 (-£204 to £504) for GOLIATH. PVP becomes cost saving if more than 32% can be carried out as a day case in the United Kingdom. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence indicates that PVP can be a cost-effective alternative for TURP in a potentially broad group of patients.

Office-Based HE-TUMT Costs Less than Medication over Four Years in Treating Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVES: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) can cause lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Medications are first line treatment for mild-moderate BPH. Office-based minimally invasive therapies (MITs) are also acceptable early treatment options but comparisons of MIT to medications are limited. MIT may be equally effective and less costly compared to long-term medical therapy. We compared data from a medication trial to pooled data of high-energy transurethral microwave therapy (HE-TUMT) to evaluate differences in outcomes and costs between the modalities. STUDY DESIGN: Covariate-adjusted comparison of treatments from independent clinical trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from Medical Therapy of Prostatic Symptoms (MTOPS) study arms were compared to Urologix pooled data from seven HE-TUMT studies at 25 centers. Improvements in voiding symptoms and quality of life (QoL) were determined and a repeated measure logistic regression analysis to control for baseline covariates was performed. Cost data were collected using published outcomes, Medicare 2013 national averages, and discount online pharmacy prices. RESULTS: HE-TUMT provided significant improvement in voiding symptoms and QoL compared to all MTOPS arms through two years. At four years, all therapies maintain similar improvements when adjusting for baseline covariates. Four year cumulative costs of HE-TUMT ($3,620) were less than combination medical therapy ($7,200). CONCLUSIONS: HE-TUMT provides better improvement of LUTS compared to medication for two years. At four years, all therapies provide comparable improvement but HE-TUMT is less expensive with better QoL. This suggests that HE-TUMT is an excellent alternative to medical therapy that should be routinely discussed and offered during detailed management of BPH.

A cost-minimisation analysis comparing photoselective vaporisation (PVP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the management of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in Queensland, Australia.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the costs of photoselective vaporisation (PVP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) from the perspective of a Queensland public hospital provider. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used to compare the costs of PVP and TURP. Cost inputs were sourced from an audit of patients undergoing PVP or TURP across three hospitals. The probability of re-intervention was obtained from secondary literature sources. Probabilistic and multi-way sensitivity analyses were used to account for uncertainty and test the impact of varying key assumptions. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, which included equipment, training and re-intervention costs, PVP was AU$ 739 (95% credible interval [CrI] -12 187 to 14 516) more costly per patient than TURP. The estimate was most sensitive to changes in procedural costs, fibre costs and the probability of re-intervention. Sensitivity analyses based on data from the most favourable site or excluding equipment and training costs reduced the point estimate to favour PVP (incremental cost AU$ -684, 95% CrI -8319 to 5796 and AU$ -100, 95% CrI -13 026 to 13 678, respectively). However, CrIs were wide for all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In this cost minimisation analysis, there was no significant cost difference between PVP and TURP, after accounting for equipment, training and re-intervention costs. However, PVP was associated with a shorter length of stay and lower procedural costs during audit, indicating PVP potentially provides comparatively good value for money once the technology is established.

[Transurethral resection (TUR) in saline plasma vaporization of the prostate versus standard TUR of the prostate: an economic evaluation]. / Étude comparant les coûts hospitaliers de la résection monopolaire et de la vaporisation bipolaire de la prostate.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the hospital costs of the transurethral resection in saline plasma vaporization of the prostate (TURis-PVP) and the standard TUR of the prostate (TURP). BACKGROUND: their efficiency and short terms outcomes are similar. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In an observational retrospective and monocentric study, 86 consecutive patients with benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) were enrolled in two non randomized groups. TURP was performed in 44 cases and TURis-PVP in 42 cases. Patients with prostate cancer, urethral stenosis or bladder neck stenosis were not included. Hospital costs with a 3-month follow-up were measured using the database and hospital cost accounting system of the Medical Information Department. RESULTS: Patients from both series had similar preoperative characteristics concerning the age, ASA score, urologic history, and antithrombosis treatments. Catheterization period, complications and rehospitalisation rates were similar. With TURis-PVP, prostatic volume was larger (60±24mL vs. 42±16mL; P<0.05), hospital stay was shorter (4.0±2.8days vs. 4.4±2.1days; P<0.05), single-used materials costs were higher (332±64€ vs. 40±18€; P<0.05). The costs of the first hospitalization were 3721±843€ with TURis-PVP and were 3712±880€ with TURP (P=0.14). Global costs with a 3-month follow-up were 3867±1104€ with TURis-PVP and were 4074±1624€ with TURP (P=0.53). CONCLUSION: In this study, the costs for the hospital are lightly higher in TURis-PVP, due to single use systems, but there is no significant difference for global costs between TURP and TURis-PVP with a 3-month follow-up difference for the health care system.

Photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy versus transurethral prostate resection: a cost analysis.

PURPOSE: Laser procedures to treat symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia are becoming more common despite concern for potentially increasing cost burdens often associated with new technologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Actual costs associated with photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy and transurethral prostate resection were measured using the EPSi and TSI (Eclipsys) hospital cost accounting systems at 2 large tertiary referral centers for the first 12 months that GreenLight HPS was performed. Only patients who presented for photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy or transurethral prostate resection as the principal treatment during the hospital visit were included in study. RESULTS: A total of 250 men underwent transurethral prostate resection and 220 underwent photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy, including 194 (78%) and 209 (95%), respectively, treated on an outpatient basis with less than 23 hours of hospitalization. Overall costs of laser vaporization were lower than those of transurethral prostate resection ($4,266 +/- $1,182 vs $5,097 +/- $5,003, p = 0.01). Average inpatient length of stay was also longer in the resection group. CONCLUSIONS: The actual costs of photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy at our affiliated hospitals are lower than those of transurethral prostate resection. The primary reason is likely that most patients who undergo laser vaporization are treated on an outpatient basis compared to those who undergo resection. While significant complications are uncommon, those that prolong inpatient hospitalization such as hyponatremia (transurethral resection syndrome), which is associated with transurethral prostate resection but not with photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy, can add substantial expense. Further studies are warranted to investigate these findings on a broader scale.

A randomized trial of photoselective vaporization of the prostate using the 80-W potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser vs transurethral prostatectomy, with a 1-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the potassium-titanyl-phosphate Greenlight(TM) 80-W laser ablation system for photovaporization of the prostate (PVP; Laserscope, San Jose, CA, USA) with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), as many technologies have been proposed as equivalent or superior to TURP without gaining widespread acceptance, due to lack of data from randomized trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 120 patients were randomized to undergo either TURP or PVP after a full urological evaluation, which was repeated at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. Irrigation use, duration of catheterization (DOC), length of hospital stay (LOS), blood loss, cost and operative time were also assessed. RESULTS: Both groups showed a significant increase in mean (sd) maximum urinary flow rate from baseline (P < 0.05); in the TURP group from 8.9 (3.0) to 19.4 (8.7) mL/s (154%), and in the PVP group from 8.8 (2.5) to 18.6 (8.2) mL/s (136%). The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) decreased from 25.4 (5.7) to 10.9 (9.4) in the TURP group (53%), and from 25.3 (5.9) to 8.9 (7.6) in the PVP group (61%). The trends were similar for the bother and Quality of Life scores. There was no difference in sexual function as measured by Baseline Sexual Function Questionnaires. The DOC was significantly less in the PVP than the TURP group (P < 0.001), with a mean (range) of 13 (0-24) h vs 44.7 (6-192) h. The situation was similar for LOS (P < 0.001), with a mean (range) of 1.09 (1-2) and 3.6 (3-9) days in the PVP and TURP groups, respectively. Adverse events and complications were less frequent in the PVP group. Costs were also 22% less in the PVP group. CONCLUSIONS: This trial shows that PVP is an effective technique when compared to TURP, producing equivalent improvements in flow rates and IPSS with the advantages of markedly reduced LOS, DOC and adverse events. A long-term follow-up is being undertaken to ensure durability of these results.

Holmium laser prostatectomy in a tertiary Italian center: A prospective cost analysis in comparison with bipolar TURP and open prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the economic impact of Holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) in comparison with transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) and open prostatectomy (OP). METHODS: Between January 2017 and January 2018, we prospectively enrolled 151 men who underwent HoLEP, TURP or OP at tertiary Italian center, due to bladder outflow obstruction symptoms. Patients with prostate volume ≤ 70 cc and those with prostate volume > 70 cc were scheduled for TURP or HoLEP and OP or HoLEP, respectively. Intraoperative and early post-operative functional outcomes were recorded up to 6 months follow up. Cost analysis was carried out considering direct costs (operating room [OR] utilization costs, nurse, surgeons and anesthesiologists' costs, OR disposable products costs and OR products sterilization costs), indirect costs (hospital stay costs and diagnostics costs) and global costs as sum of both direct and indirect plus general costs related to hospitalization. Cost analysis was performed comparing patients referred to TURP and HoLEP with prostate volume ≤ 70 cc and men underwent OP and HoLEP with prostate volume > 70 cc respectively. RESULTS: Overall, 53 (35.1%), 51 (33.7%) and 47 (31.1%) were scheduled to HoLEP, TURP and OP, respectively. Both TURP, HoLEP and OP proved to effectively improve urinary symptoms related to BPE. Considering patients with prostate volume ≤ 70 cc, median global cost of HoLEP was similar to median global cost of TURP (2151.69 € vs. 2185.61 €, respectively; p = 0.61). Considering patients with prostate volume > 70 cc, median global cost of HoLEP was found to be significantly lower than median global cost of OP (2174.15 € vs. 4064.97 €, respectively; p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Global costs of HoLEP are comparable to those of TURP, offering a cost saving of only 11.4 € in favor of HoLEP. Conversely, HoLEP proved to be a strong competitor of OP because of significant global cost sparing amounting to 1890.82 € in favor of HoLEP.

Minimally Invasive Treatment for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Economic Evaluation from a Standardized Hospital Case Costing System.

PURPOSE: Minimally invasive alternatives to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) such as prostate arterial embolization (PAE) and photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) are being explored as adjuncts in the care of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. However, there are conflicting reports of the costs of these procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare the direct and indirect hospital costs of TURP, PAE and PVP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A chart review was performed in patients who underwent TURP, PVP and PAE from April 2015 to March 2017. All hospital costs were collected in accordance with the Ontario Case Costing Initiative, a standardized medical case costing system. Costs were characterized as direct or indirect and fixed or variable. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to study cost uncertainty. RESULTS: During the study period, a total of 209 men underwent TURP, 28 PVP and 21 PAE. Mean age (years) was as follows: TURP 71.43; PVP 73.66; PAE 70.77 (p = 0.366). Mean length of stay (days) was as follows: TURP 1.63; PVP 1.55; PAE 1 (p = 0.076). Total costs of the PAE group ($3829, SD $1582) were less than both PVP ($5719, SD $1515) and TURP groups ($5034, SD $1997, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in direct costs between the groups. Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated that PAE was the least costly alternative majority of the time. CONCLUSIONS: The total hospital costs of PAE at our institution are significantly lower than those of PVP and TURP.

Economic Value of the Transurethral Resection in Saline System for Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in England and Wales: Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Cost-Consequence Model.

CONTEXT: Monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (M-TURP) is the current UK surgical standard of care for benign prostatic hyperplasia, a condition estimated to affect >2 million men in the United Kingdom. Although M-TURP efficacy in prostate resection is established, potential perioperative complications and associated costs remain a concern. OBJECTIVE: To present up-to-date and robust evidence in support of bipolar transurethral resection in saline (TURis) as an alternative surgical option to M-TURP. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review (SR) of electronic databases (up to 2015) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TURis with M-TURP was conducted, followed by evidence synthesis in the form of a meta-analysis of hospital stay, catheterisation time and procedure duration, transurethral resection (TUR) syndrome, blood transfusion, clot retention, and urethral strictures. An economic analysis was subsequently undertaken from the UK National Health Service hospital perspective with costs and resource use data from published sources. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The SR identified 15 good-quality RCTs, of which 11 were used to inform the meta-analysis. TURis was associated with improved safety versus M-TURP, eliminating the risk of TUR syndrome and reducing the risk of blood transfusion and clot retention (relative risks: 0.34 and 0.43, respectively; p<0.05). TURis also reduced hospital stay (mean difference: 0.56 d; p<0.0001). The economic analysis indicated potential cost savings with TURis versus M-TURP of up to £204 per patient, with incremental equipment costs offset by savings from reduced hospital stay and fewer complications. CONCLUSIONS: The TURis system is associated with significant improvements in perioperative safety compared with M-TURP while ensuring equivalent clinical outcomes of prostate resection. The safety benefits identified may translate into cost savings for UK health services. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our review of bipolar transurethral resection in saline, the new prostate resection technique, indicates that it offers equal efficacy while reducing complications and length of hospital stay.

Medical therapy versus surgery and minimally invasive surgical therapies for lower urinary tract symptoms and benign prostatic hyperplasia: what makes better economic sense?

From a clinical standpoint, the emergence of selective pharmacologic therapies and minimally invasive procedural treatments has changed clinical management paradigms for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Choosing from among the available treatment options can be complex for both patient and physician as factors including clinical outcomes, cost, and reimbursement are weighed and evaluated. Pharmacologic therapies produce modest improvements in objective outcomes measures and subject patients to long-term costs and risks including disease progression and the potential need for subsequent procedural treatment. Procedural interventions for obstructive BPH have changed dramatically in the past several decades as minimally invasive therapies have been developed to produce substantial improvement in outcomes measures and limit the potential morbidity associated with traditional surgical therapies. This paper reviews the current literature to provide a framework for understanding the relationship between clinical outcomes and costs with respect to commonly used medical and procedural therapies for the management of symptomatic BPH and associated lower urinary tract symptoms. The objective is to provide the clinician with an assessment of peer-reviewed evidence-based data to facilitate informed decision making on patient treatment for obstructive BPH.