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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cost Analysis of Prostate Artery Embolization (PAE) and Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) in the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

PURPOSE: Prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to TURP; however, there are limited cost comparisons reported. The purpose of this study was to compare in-hospital direct costs of elective PAE and TURP in a hospital setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective review was performed on patients undergoing PAE and TURP from January to December 2014. Inclusion criteria included male patients greater than 40 years of age who presented for ambulatory TURP or PAE with no history of prior surgical intervention for BPH. Direct costs were categorized into the following categories: nursing and operating room or interventional room staffing, operating room or interventional supply costs, anesthesia supplies, anesthesia staffing, hospital room cost, radiology, and laboratory costs. Additionally, length of stay was evaluated for both groups. RESULTS: The mean patient age for the TURP (n = 86) and PAE (n = 70) cohorts was 71.3 and 64.4 years, respectively (p < 0.0001). Intra-procedural supplies for PAE were significantly more costly than TURP ($1472.77 vs $1080.84, p < 0.0001). When including anesthesia supplies and nursing/staffing, costs were significantly more expensive for TURP than PAE ($2153.64 vs $1667.10 p < 0.0001). The average length of stay for the TURP group was longer at 1.38 versus 0.125 days for the PAE group. Total in-hospital costs for the TURP group ($5338.31, SD $3521.17) were significantly higher than for PAE ($1678.14, SD $442.0, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: When compared to TURP, PAE was associated with significantly lower direct in-hospital costs and shorter hospital stay.

Economic Evaluation Study (Cheer Compliant) Laser Prostatectomy for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Outcomes and Cost-effectiveness.

To determine which surgical treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms, which is suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), is more cost-effective and yields a better patient's preference. Treatment outcome, cost, and perioperative complications to assess the treatment effectiveness of using laser prostatectomy as a treatment for BPH were investigated in this study.This retrospective study included 100 patients who underwent transurethral resection of prostate (TUR-P) and another 100 patients who received high-powered 120 W (GreenLight HPS) laser prostatectomy between 2005 and 2011.International Prostate Symptom Score and uroflow parameters were collected before the surgery and the uroflow and postvoiding residual volumes were evaluated before treatment and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment. The results of 100 treatments after HPS laser prostatectomy were compared with the results of 100 patients who received TUR-P from the same surgeon. Complication rates and admission costs were analyzed.From 2005 to 2011, 200 consecutive patients underwent endoscopic surgery. Study participants were men with BPH with mean age of 71.3 years old. The peak flow rate went from 8.47 to 15.83 mL/s for 3 months after laser prostatectomy. Laser therapy groups showed better improvement in symptom score, shortened length of stay, and quality of life score when compared with those of TUR-P procedures. The estimated cost for laser prostatectomy was high when compared with cost of any other TUR-P procedural option at Chang Gung Hospital (P = 0.001). All admission charges were similar except for the cost of the laser equipment and accessories (mainly the laser fiber) (P = 0.001). Due to this cost of equipment, it increased the total admission charges for the laser group and therefore made the cost for the laser group higher than that of the TUR-P group.Perioperative complications, such as the need for checking for bleeding, urinary retention rate or urosepsis rate within 30 days after the surgery, held no significant differences between both groups.Compared with alternative treatment options, laser prostatectomy of the prostate is clinically effective but yields a high cost of treatment for symptomatic BPH.

The TURis System for Transurethral Resection of the Prostate: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance.

The transurethral resection in saline (TURis) system was notified by the company Olympus Medical to the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence's (NICE's) Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme. Following selection for medical technologies guidance, the company developed a submission of clinical and economic evidence for evaluation. TURis is a bipolar surgical system for treating men with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic enlargement. The comparator is any monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (mTURP) system. Cedar, a collaboration between Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff University and Swansea University in the UK, acted as an External Assessment Centre (EAC) for NICE to independently critique the company's submission of evidence. Eight randomised trials provided evidence for TURis, demonstrating efficacy equivalent to that of mTURP for improvement of symptoms. The company presented meta-analyses of key outcome measures, and the EAC made methodological modifications in response to the heterogeneity of the trial data. The EAC analysis found that TURis substantially reduced the relative risks of transurethral resection syndrome (relative risk 0.18 [95 % confidence interval 0.05-0.62]) and blood transfusion (relative risk 0.35 [95 % confidence interval 0.19-0.65]). The company provided a de novo economic model comparing TURis with mTURP. The EAC critiqued the model methodology and made modifications. This found TURis to be cost saving at £70.55 per case for existing Olympus customers and cost incurring at £19.80 per case for non-Olympus customers. When an additional scenario based on the only available data on readmission (due to any cause) from a single trial was modelled, the estimated cost saving per case was £375.02 for existing users of Olympus electrosurgery equipment and £284.66 per case when new Olympus equipment would need to be purchased. Meta-analysis of eight randomised trials showed that TURis is associated with a statistically significantly reduced risk of transurethral resection syndrome and a reduced need for blood transfusion-two factors that may drive cost saving for the National Health Service. The clinical data are equivocal as to whether TURis shortens the hospital stay. Limited data from a single study suggest that TURis may reduce the rate of readmission after surgery. The NICE guidance supports adoption of the TURis technology for performing transurethral resection of the prostate in men with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic enlargement.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis at 2 years of surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia by photoselective vaporization of the prostate with GreenLight-Photo vaporization 120 W versus transurethral resection of the prostate.

INTRODUCTION: Transurethral resection of the prostate is the gold standard of surgical treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms associated to benign prostate hyperplasia. The new Green Light Photovaporization has been shown to be an alternative that is as effective for this condition as the transurethral resection of the prostate. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficiency of Green Light Photovaporization 120 W versus transurethral resection of the prostate in the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) in a 2-year time horizon from the perspective of the Spanish health service perspective. METHODS: A cost utility analysis was performed retrospectively with the data from 98 patients treated sequentially with transurethral resection of the prostate (n: 50) and Green Light Photovaporization 120 W (n: 48). A Markov model was designed to estimate the cost (2012€) and results (quality adjusted life years) in a 2-year time horizon. RESULTS: The total cost associated to Green Light Photovaporization 120 W treatment was less (3,377€; 95% CI: 3,228; 3,537) than that of the transurethral resection of the prostate (3,770€; 95% CI: 3,579; 3,945). The determining factor of the cost was the surgical phase (difference: -450€; 95% CI: -625; -158) because admission to hospital after surgery was not necessary with the GreenLight-PhotoVaporization. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment of BPH patients with GreenLight-PhotoVaporization 120 W is more efficient than transurethral resection of the prostate in the surgical treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia as it has similar effectiveness and lower cost (-393€; 95% CI: -625; -158).

Photoselective vaporization for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: As an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) provides a bloodless, relatively painless relief of lower urinary tract symptoms for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Following a review of the evidence in 2006, the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee recommended that a study be conducted to evaluate PVP in Ontario. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of PVP compared to conventional TURP for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia in Ontario. METHODS: A prospective, nonrandomized trial was conducted in 3 Ontario centres. Consenting subjects were assessed at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months following surgery. Outcome measures included International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), peak urinary flow rate (Qmax), post-void residual (PVR) volume, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), health-related quality of life (HRQOL) using the EuroQol 5 Domain questionnaire, and the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) score. Adverse events, resource utilization, and productivity losses were also assessed. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses were completed using data from the study. RESULTS: Between February 2008 and August 2010, 164 subjects were enrolled in the study (n = 140 for PVP and n = 24 for TURP). Treatment outcomes were similar between the 2 groups at 6 months, with the IPSS decreasing similarly over time (P = 0.718). For other treatment outcomes (Qmax, PSA, HRQOL, SHIM) both treatments provided similar benefit over time; only changes in PVR volume favoured PVP (P = 0.018). The majority of PVP patients were managed on an outpatient basis, with only 7.1% requiring admission (all TURP subjects were inpatients). At 6 months, PVP was less costly than TURP ($3,891 versus $4,863; P = 0.001), with similar quality-adjusted life-years (0.448 versus 0.441; P = 0.658). PVP remained the most cost-effective treatment across all decision-making thresholds, with the technology costing less and providing similar clinical outcomes. Extrapolating the results to a provincial level indicated (based on an estimated case volume of 12,335 TURPs) that there is an opportunity to reallocate just over $14 million (Cdn), primarily related to the reduced need for hospital admission. LIMITATIONS: This study was nonrandomized, and the results should be interpreted with some caution, despite generally similar baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. Recruiting individuals to the TURP arm was a challenge, resulting in a size imbalance between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this analysis, PVP appears to be a cost-effective alternative to TURP, providing similar clinical benefit at a lower cost to the health system.

[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.

National trends in surgical therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia in the United States (2000-2008).

OBJECTIVE: To report an update of the change in usage trends for different surgical treatments of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) among the United States Medicare population data from 2000-2008. The rate of usage of thermotherapy and laser therapy in the surgical treatment of BPH has been changing over the past decade in conjunction with a steady decrease of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). METHODS: Using the 100% Medicare carrier file for the years 2000-2008, we calculated counts and population-adjusted rates of BPH surgery. Rates of TURP, thermotherapy, and laser-using modalities were calculated and compared in relation to age, race, clinical setting, and reimbursement. RESULTS: After years of a steady rise, the total rate of all BPH procedures peaked in 2005 at 1078/100,000 and then declined by 15.4% to 912/100,000 in 2008. TURP rates continued to decline from 670 in 2000 to 351/100,000 in 2008. Rates of microwave thermoablation peaked in 2006 at 266/100,000 and then declined 26% in 2008. Laser vaporization almost completely replaced laser coagulation and in 2008 was the most commonly performed procedure second to TURP, with the majority performed as outpatient procedures (70%) and an increasing percentage in the office (12%). Men between ages 70 and 75 had the highest rate of procedures. Reimbursement rates correlate using some but not all procedures. Racial disparities reported previously appear to have resolved. CONCLUSION: Surgical treatment of BPH continues to change rapidly. TURP continues to decline and laser vaporization is the fastest growing modality. There is a big shift toward outpatient/office procedures. Reimbursement rates do not appear to have a consistent effect on usage.

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.

[Combined inguinal hernia repair and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for benign prostatic hypertrophy]. / Cure de hernie inguinale et résection transurétrale de l'adénome de prostate en un seul temps opératoire.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the outcome of transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) and inguinal hernia repair performed in a single session. METHODS: Data was obtained retrospectively for 31 patients (mean age 65 years) who underwent simultaneous TURP and inguinal hernia repair. Most patients had lower urinary tract symptoms related to BPH such as acute urinary retention, recurrent bladder retention, or severe dysuria. Twenty-one patients had simple inguinal hernia and ten had large inguinoscrotal hernia. Operations were performed in 23 patients under spinal anesthesia. Bassini's operation was the most common herniorrhaphy technique (23 patients). RESULTS: We observed good outcomes in 86% of the patients. The morbidity rate was 10.7%, the mean postoperative stay was 3.6 days (2-6 days). There was no recurrence of inguinal hernia. CONCLUSION: Combining TURP and inguinal hernia repair in one session decreases the number of procedures and anesthesias, hospital stay, and thus direct health costs and does not result in an increase in operative or postoperative morbidity.

Surgical treatments for men with benign prostatic enlargement: cost effectiveness study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine which surgical treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostate enlargement is cost effective. DESIGN: Care pathways describing credible treatment strategies were decided by consensus. Cost-utility analysis used Markov modelling and Monte Carlo simulation. DATA SOURCES: Clinical effectiveness data came from a systematic review and an individual level dataset. Utility values came from previous economic evaluations. Costs were calculated from National Health Service (NHS) and commercial sources. METHODS: The Markov model included parameters with associated measures of uncertainty describing health states between which individuals might move at three monthly intervals over 10 years. Successive annual cohorts of 25,000 men were entered into the model and the probability that treatment strategies were cost effective was assessed with Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations. RESULTS: A treatment strategy of initial diathermy vaporisation of the prostate followed by endoscopic holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in case of failure to benefit or subsequent relapse had an 85% probability of being cost effective at a willingness to pay value of pound20,000 (euro21,595, $28,686)/quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Other strategies with diathermy vaporisation as the initial treatment were generally cheaper and more effective than the current standard of transurethral resection repeated once if necessary. The use of potassium titanyl phosphate laser vaporisation incurred higher costs and was less effective than transurethral resection, and strategies involving initial minimally invasive treatment with microwave thermotherapy were not cost effective. Findings were unchanged by wide ranging sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The outcome of this economic model should be interpreted cautiously because of the limitations of the data used. The finding that initial vaporisation followed by holmium laser enucleation for failure or relapse might be advantageous both to men with lower urinary tract symptoms and to healthcare providers requires confirmation in a good quality prospective clinical trial before any change in current practice. Potassium titanyl phosphate laser vaporisation was unlikely to be cost effective in our model, which argues against its unrestricted use until further evidence of effectiveness and cost reduction is obtained.

[Economic evaluation of medical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in the specialised care setting in Spain. Application to the cost-effectiveness of two drugs frequently used in its treatment]. / Evaluación económica del tratamiento médico de la hiperplasia benigna de próstata (HBP) en España en atención especializada. Aplicación al coste- efectividad de dos fármacos habitualmente utilizados en su tratamiento.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a pharmacoeconomic study in order to know the average cost of BPH diagnosis and follow-up in Spain in the Urology Department setting from the perspective of the public health system, considering two frequently used drugs in the Spanish Healthcare environment, an alpha-blocker (tamsulosin) and the lipido-sterolic extract of Serenoa repens (Permixon). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Direct healthcare costs of BPH diagnosis and treatment were determined for each clinical stage according to the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS): mild, moderate and severe. Data on the usage and unit costs of healthcare resources were obtained from a semi-structured interview with clinical experts. The clinical efficacy of the medical treatments was obtained from the PERMAL clinical study, where therapeutic equivalence between the two studied drugs was observed. RESULTS: For patients treated in the Urology Department setting, the average annual cost of diagnostic tests and medical visits related to mild, moderate or severe BPH symptoms were, respectively, Euro 124, Euro 207, and Euro 286. The average annual cost of the drugs, including adverse effects treatment, was Euro 211 for Permixon and Euro 346 for tamsulosin. DISCUSSION: Costs of medical care of BPH increases with symptom intensity. Pharmacological treatment makes up a significant part of the disease's cost. According to the model used, treatment with Permixon is considerably more cost-effective than with tamsulosin, offering average yearly savings of Euro 135 per patient.

5-Alpha reductase inhibitors in men with an enlarged prostate: an evaluation of outcomes and therapeutic alternatives.

This article presents background information and highlights key findings from a managed care perspective related to enlarged prostate (EP) in Medicare-eligible patients. This article does not provide a comprehensive review of EP but instead attempts to increase the current understanding of EP through discussion of its prevalence in men aged > or =65 years, its associated economic burden, and some available treatment options. This supplement includes 3 additional articles, all of which present data from a naturalistic, managed care setting. The article by Fenter et al assesses differences in outcomes between elderly EP patients treated with finasteride and those treated with dutasteride in relation to the risks of acute urinary retention and prostate-related surgery. Issa et al conduct a comparative analysis of the combined use of alpha-blockers and 5-alpha reductase inhibitors to treat EP. The final article compares medical costs incurred within the first year of initiating treatment for EP patients receiving finasteride versus dutasteride. This supplement is intended to assist managed care formulary decision makers in evaluating key clinical and economic data that differentiate dutasteride and finasteride within the Medicare-aged population. Although the information presented is not designed to illustrate the superiority of one product over the other, it answers important questions in relation to treating EP in elderly men and raises substantial issues beyond medication costs.