Costs Associated with Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy Are Lower Than Anterior Temporal Lobectomy for Treatment of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) is a minimally invasive alternative to anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL) for treatment of temporal lobe epilepsy. It has gained popularity as familiarity with technique increases and outcomes are better characterized. There has been no direct cost comparison between the 2 techniques in literature to date. The current study directly compares hospital costs associated with LITT with those of ATL patients and analyzes the factors potentially responsible for those costs. METHODS: Patients who underwent ATL (27) and LITT (15) were retrospectively reviewed for total hospital costs along with demographic, surgical, and postoperative factors potentially affecting cost. T-tests were used to compare costs and independent linear regressions, and hierarchical regressions were used to examine predictors of cost for each procedure. RESULTS: Mean hospital costs of admission for single-trajectory LITT ($104,929.88) were significantly less than for ATL ($134,980.04) (P = 0.001). In addition, length of stay, anesthesia costs, operative room costs, and postoperative hospitalization costs were all significantly lower in LITT. CONCLUSIONS: Given the minimally invasive nature of LITT, it is associated with shorter length of stay and lower hospital costs than ATL in the first head-to-head comparison of procedural costs in literature to date. Long-term efficacy as it relates to these costs associated with LITT and ATL should be further investigated to better characterize the utility of LITT in temporal lobe epilepsy patients.

[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.

An Initial Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Magnetic Resonance-Guided Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy in Pediatric Epilepsy Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Magnetic resonance-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (MRgLITT) is a new technology that provides a clinically efficacious and minimally invasive alternative to conventional microsurgical resection. However, little data exist on how costs compare to traditional open surgery. The goal of this paper is to investigate the cost-effectiveness of MRgLITT in the treatment of pediatric epilepsy. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of pediatric patients who underwent MRgLITT via the Visualase® thermal therapy system (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) between December 2013 and September 2017. Direct costs associated with preoperative, operative, and follow-up care were extracted. Benefit was calculated in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the cost-effectiveness was derived from the discounted total direct costs over QALY. Sensitivity analysis on 4 variables was utilized to assess the validity of our results. RESULTS: Twelve consecutive pediatric patients with medically refractory epilepsy underwent MRgLITT procedures. At the last postoperative follow-up, 8 patients were seizure free (Engel I, 66.7%), 2 demonstrated significant improvement (Engel II, 16.7%), and 2 patients showed worthwhile improvement (Engel III, 16.7%). The average cumulative discounted QALY was 2.11 over the lifetime of a patient. Adjusting for inflation, MRgLITT procedures had a cost-effectiveness of USD 22,211 per QALY. Our sensitivity analysis of cost variables is robust and supports the procedure to be cost--effective. CONCLUSION: Our data suggests that MRgLITT may be a cost-effective alternative to traditional surgical resection in pediatric epilepsy surgery.

Photobiomodulation in oral mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis followed by a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis (OM) is an oral toxicity caused by cancer treatment, found often in patients with head and neck cancer. Low-intensity laser therapy for OM has anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and tissue reparative properties. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized clinical trials of OM laser therapy in patients undergoing treatment for head and neck cancers, followed by a cost-effectiveness analysis of the therapy. METHOD: The search terms, mucositis and phototherapy, laser therapy and mucositis, photobiomodulation and mucositis, and low-level laser therapy and mucositis, were used to search the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, and MEDLINE. Randomized clinical trials were divided into two groups: one treated with laser therapy and the other given a placebo. Only 13 studies were included in the systematic review, and 6 studies in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: The results of the systematic review and meta-analysis show that the laser therapy presented good results in clinical improvement and pain reduction, decreasing the patients' likelihood of developing OM, with degrees of debilitating lesions, to 64% (RR = 0.36 [95% CI = 0.29-0.44]). The cost-effectiveness analysis revealed an incremental cost of R$ 3687.53 for the laser group, with an incremental effectiveness of 132.2. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 27.89, for the severe OM cases that were avoided. CONCLUSION: It was concluded, therefore, that photobiomodulation for OM in patients receiving head and neck cancer treatment was clinically effective and cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic laser ablation (SLA) for brain tumors.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic laser ablation(SLA) or laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) has been increasingly adopted as a treatment for primary and metastatic brain cancers. Here, we examined the published economic assessments of SLA, and review the current state of knowledge. METHODS: The PubMed database was queried for articles investigating the cost-effectiveness of LITT. 3068 articles were screened. Two studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in this review. RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA) favored SLA(n = 8) relative to craniotomy (n = 92) for brain metastases (Mean difference [MD]=-US$6522; 95% confidence interval (CI) -$11,911 to -$1133; p = 0.02). SLA (n = 19) was found to be cost equivalent to craniotomy (n = 248) (MD=-US$1669; 95%(CI) -$8192 to $4854, p = 0.62) for primary brain tumors in general. CEA favored SLA for a subset of primary brain cancers. SLA was found to be cost-effective for difficult to access high-grade gliomas(HGG). When compared to 'other' existing treatments, the cost per life-years gained (LYG) through SLA was ∼$29,340, a threshold below that set for new technology adaptation in the U.S. Factors contributing to these cost-effectiveness were: (1) SLA of HGGs was associated with three-months prolongation in survival; (2) SLA of brain metastasis was associated with (i) shorter average length of stay (SLA: 2.3 days; craniotomy: 4.7 days), (ii) decreased discharge to inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF), skilled nursing facility (SNF), or home healthcare (SLA: 14.8%; craniotomy: 52%), (iii) lowered 30-day readmission (SLA: 0%; craniotomy: 14.1%). CONCLUSION: There is limited data on the cost-effectiveness of SLA. In the available literature, SLA compared favorably to craniotomy in terms of cost-effectiveness as a treatment for primary and metastatic brain cancers.

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.

Five-Year Outcomes of a Randomized Trial of Treatments for Varicose Veins.

BACKGROUND: Endovenous laser ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy are recommended alternatives to surgery for the treatment of primary varicose veins, but their long-term comparative effectiveness remains uncertain. METHODS: In a randomized, controlled trial involving 798 participants with primary varicose veins at 11 centers in the United Kingdom, we compared the outcomes of laser ablation, foam sclerotherapy, and surgery. Primary outcomes at 5 years were disease-specific quality of life and generic quality of life, as well as cost-effectiveness based on models of expected costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained that used data on participants' treatment costs and scores on the EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaire. RESULTS: Quality-of-life questionnaires were completed by 595 (75%) of the 798 trial participants. After adjustment for baseline scores and other covariates, scores on the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (on which scores range from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating a better quality of life) were lower among patients who underwent laser ablation or surgery than among those who underwent foam sclerotherapy (effect size [adjusted differences between groups] for laser ablation vs. foam sclerotherapy, -2.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.49 to -1.22; P<0.001; and for surgery vs. foam sclerotherapy, -2.60; 95% CI, -3.99 to -1.22; P<0.001). Generic quality-of-life measures did not differ among treatment groups. At a threshold willingness-to-pay ratio of £20,000 ($28,433 in U.S. dollars) per QALY, 77.2% of the cost-effectiveness model iterations favored laser ablation. In a two-way comparison between foam sclerotherapy and surgery, 54.5% of the model iterations favored surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of treatments for varicose veins, disease-specific quality of life 5 years after treatment was better after laser ablation or surgery than after foam sclerotherapy. The majority of the probabilistic cost-effectiveness model iterations favored laser ablation at a willingness-to-pay ratio of £20,000 ($28,433) per QALY. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; CLASS Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN51995477.).

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.

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.

A randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the National Health Service (NHS) - the UNBLOCS trial: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has been the standard operation for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) for 40 years, with approximately 25,000 procedures performed annually, and has remained largely unchanged. It is generally a successful operation, but has well-documented risks for the patient. Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) vaporises and resects the prostate using a surgical technique similar to TURP. The small amount of study data currently available suggests that ThuVARP may have certain advantages over TURP, including reduced blood loss and shorter hospital stay, earlier return to normal activities, and shorter duration of catheterisation. DESIGN: A multicentre, pragmatic, randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial of ThuVARP versus standard TURP in men with BPO. Four hundred and ten men suitable for prostate surgery were randomised to receive either ThuVARP or TURP at four university teaching hospitals, and three district general hospitals. The key aim of the trial is to determine whether ThuVARP is equivalent to TURP judged on both the patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the maximum urine flow rate (Qmax) at 12 months post-surgery. DISCUSSION: The general population has an increased life expectancy. As men get older their prostates enlarge, potentially causing BPO, which often requires surgery. Therefore, as the population ages, more prostate operations are needed to relieve obstruction. There is hence sustained interest in the condition and increasing need to find safer techniques than TURP. Various laser techniques have become available but none are widely used in the NHS because of lengthy training required for surgeons or inferior performance on clinical outcomes. Promising initial evidence from one RCT shows that ThuVARP has equivalent clinical effectiveness when compared to TURP, as well as other potential advantages. As ThuVARP uses a technique similar to that used in TURP, the learning curve is short, potentially making it also very quickly generalisable. This randomised study is designed to provide the high-quality evidence, in an NHS setting, with a range of patient-reported, clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes, which will underpin and inform future NICE guidance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN00788389 . Registered on 20 September 2013.

[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.

A Clinical Review of Laser and Light Therapy for Nail Psoriasis and Onychomycosis.

BACKGROUND: There are considerable emerging data in the use of lasers and lights to treat onychomycosis and psoriasis of the nail subunit. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to review all of the medical literature on laser therapy of nail psoriasis and onychomycosis published since 1992. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a PubMed literature search using the search terms "nail," "laser therapy," "laser surgery," "light," with search terms "psoriasis" and "onychomycosis." In addition, we performed extensive MeSH and bibliographic searches as delineated in the manuscript. Because of the poor quality of evidence, we were not able to complete a quantitative review and thus present our findings qualitatively. RESULTS: Although the trials are small, PDL (595 nm) and IPL with a 550-nm filter demonstrate compelling data in treating nail psoriasis. Laser studies of onychomycosis fall short on many levels. Q-switched Nd:YAG lasers with very short pulse durations and fractionated CO2 demonstrate the most promise for the treatment of onychomycosis. CONCLUSION: The data for treating nail psoriasis and onychomycosis with laser and light therapy are rapidly emerging. With increased subject data, improved study methodology, and more precise output parameters, lasers may become an important modality in the treatment of nail psoriasis and onychomycosis.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF RADIOFREQUENCY ABLATION VERSUS LASER FOR VARICOSE VEINS.

OBJECTIVES: Although the clinical benefits of endovenous thermal ablation are widely recognized, few studies have evaluated the health economic implications of different treatments. This study compares 6-month clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) compared with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the setting of a randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic primary varicose veins were randomized to EVLA or RFA and followed up for 6 months to evaluate clinical improvements, health related quality of life (HRQOL) and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 131 patients were randomized, of which 110 attended 6-month follow-up (EVLA n = 54; RFA n = 56). Improvements in quality of life (AVVQ and SF-12v2) and Venous Clinical Severity Scores (VCSS) achieved at 6 weeks were maintained at 6 months, with no significant difference detected between treatment groups. There were no differences in treatment failure rates. There were small differences in favor of EVLA in terms of costs and 6-month HRQOL but these were not statistically significant. However, RFA is associated with less pain at up to 10 days. CONCLUSIONS: EVLA and RFA result in comparable and significant gains in quality of life and clinical improvements at 6 months, compared with baseline values. EVLA is more likely to be cost-effective than RFA but absolute differences in costs and HRQOL are small.

Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate Versus Bipolar Resection of the Prostate: A Prospective Randomized Study. "Pros and Cons".

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety, efficacy, and applicability of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURPb) procedures, whereas the secondary objective is to find out the advantages and disadvantages of each. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective randomized study included 120 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia that required intervention. The patients were randomized in 2 equal groups: group A managed by HoLEP and group B managed by TURPb. The mean age, International Prostate Symptom Score, maximum urine flow, residual urine, operative time, blood loss, resected volume, catheterization time, hospital stay, and costs were compared. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable regarding the preoperative parameters. The mean operative time was statistically significantly longer in the HoLEP group. The drop in the hemoglobin level was statistically significantly in group B. The mean resected prostatic volume was 61.167 g in the HoLEP group and 58.8 g in the TURPb group. The catheter was removed after 24 hours in 51 and 36 patients in groups A and B, respectively. The International Prostate Symptom Score at 1 and 12 months and the maximum urine flow at 12 months postoperatively were found to be better in the HoLEP group than in the bipolar group, and this difference was found to be statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Although the HoLEP technique is associated with a relatively longer operative time, it has proved to be effective in treating large prostates with minimal morbidity, better hemostasis, less blood loss, and better voiding pattern than TURPb after a 12-month follow-up.

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.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of foam sclerotherapy, endovenous laser ablation and surgery for varicose veins: results from the Comparison of LAser, Surgery and foam Sclerotherapy (CLASS) randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Foam sclerotherapy (foam) and endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) have emerged as alternative treatments to surgery for patients with varicose veins, but uncertainty exists regarding their effectiveness in the medium to longer term. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of foam, EVLA and surgery for the treatment of varicose veins. DESIGN: A parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) without blinding, and economic modelling evaluation. SETTING: Eleven UK specialist vascular centres. PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred and ninety-eight patients with primary varicose veins (foam, n = 292; surgery, n = 294; EVLA, n = 212). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised between all three treatment options (eight centres) or between foam and surgery (three centres). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Disease-specific [Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ)] and generic [European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), Short Form questionnaire-36 items (SF-36) physical and mental component scores] quality of life (QoL) at 6 months. Cost-effectiveness as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality of life at 6 weeks; residual varicose veins; Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS); complication rates; return to normal activity; truncal vein ablation rates; and costs. RESULTS: The results appear generalisable in that participants' baseline characteristics (apart from a lower-than-expected proportion of females) and post-treatment improvement in outcomes were comparable with those in other RCTs. The health gain achieved in the AVVQ with foam was significantly lower than with surgery at 6 months [effect size -1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.97 to -0.50; p = 0.006], but was similar to that achieved with EVLA. The health gain in SF-36 mental component score for foam was worse than that for EVLA (effect size 1.54, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.06; p = 0.048) but similar to that for surgery. There were no differences in EQ-5D or SF-36 component scores in the surgery versus foam or surgery versus EVLA comparisons at 6 months. The trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis showed that, at 6 months, foam had the highest probability of being considered cost-effective at a ceiling willingness-to-pay ratio of £20,000 per QALY. EVLA was found to cost £26,107 per QALY gained versus foam, and was less costly and generated slightly more QALYs than surgery. Markov modelling using trial costs and the limited recurrence data available suggested that, at 5 years, EVLA had the highest probability (≈ 79%) of being cost-effective at conventional thresholds, followed by foam (≈ 17%) and surgery (≈ 5%). With regard to secondary outcomes, health gains at 6 weeks (p < 0.005) were greater for EVLA than for foam (EQ-5D, p = 0.004). There were fewer procedural complications in the EVLA group (1%) than after foam (7%) and surgery (8%) (p < 0.001). Participants returned to a wide range of behaviours more quickly following foam or EVLA than following surgery (p < 0.05). There were no differences in VCSS between the three treatments. Truncal ablation rates were higher for surgery (p < 0.001) and EVLA (p < 0.001) than for foam, and were similar for surgery and EVLA. CONCLUSIONS: Considerations of both the 6-month clinical outcomes and the estimated 5-year cost-effectiveness suggest that EVLA should be considered as the treatment of choice for suitable patients. FUTURE WORK: Five-year trial results are currently being evaluated to compare the cost-effectiveness of foam, surgery and EVLA, and to determine the recurrence rates following each treatment. This trial has highlighted the need for long-term outcome data from RCTs on QoL, recurrence rates and costs for foam sclerotherapy and other endovenous techniques compared against each other and against surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51995477. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy, endovenous laser ablation or surgery as treatment for primary varicose veins from the randomized CLASS trial.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of patients with varicose veins constitutes a considerable workload and financial burden to the National Health Service. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) and endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) compared with conventional surgery as treatment for primary varicose veins. METHODS: Participant cost and utility data were collected alongside the UK CLASS multicentre randomized clinical trial, which compared EVLA, surgery and UGFS. Regression methods were used to estimate the effects of the alternative treatments on costs to the health service and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at 6 months. A Markov model, incorporating available evidence on clinical recurrence rates, was developed to extrapolate the trial data over a 5-year time horizon. RESULTS: Compared with surgery at 6 months, UGFS and EVLA reduced mean costs to the health service by £655 and £160 respectively. When additional overhead costs associated with theatre use were included, these cost savings increased to £902 and £392 respectively. UGFS produced 0·005 fewer QALYs, whereas EVLA produced 0·011 additional QALYs. Extrapolating to 5 years, EVLA was associated with increased costs and QALYs compared with UGFS (costing £3640 per QALY gained), and generated a cost saving (£206-439) and QALY gain (0·078) compared with surgery. Applying a ceiling willingness-to-pay ratio of £20 000 per QALY gained, EVLA had the highest probability (78·7 per cent) of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: The results suggest, for patients considered eligible for all three treatment options, that EVLA has the highest probability of being cost-effective at accepted thresholds of willingness to pay per QALY.

Superficial venous insufficiency from the infernal to the endothermal.

This review presents the common diseases associated with superficial venous insufficiency of the leg. These include varicose veins, swelling, skin damage and ulceration. The benefits and rationale behind treatment are discussed, followed by the historical advances from ancient mortality and prayer to the modern endovenous revolution. Finally, an overview of modern treatment options will discuss the evidence supporting the gold standard of endothermal ablation and the cost effectiveness of treatment at this time of challenging resource limitation.