Transurethral water vapor therapy for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia: a cost-minimization and budget impact analysis from an Italian healthcare perspective.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the costs and budget impact of adopting water vapor thermal therapy with the Rezum™ System, for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), from an Italian hospital healthcare perspective. METHODS: A Markov model (4-year time horizon, 3-month cycle length), developed to support a submission to the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England, was adapted to an Italian payer perspective. A cost minimization analysis was conducted, assuming equal efficacy between both therapies. Net difference in costs per patient was reported, considering procedure, adverse events and retreatment costs. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses considered the uncertainty of the results. Population data and market share distribution assumptions were applied to a cohort of Italian patients treated in one year to report the budget and capacity impact of increased use of Rezum. RESULTS: Over 4 years, the costs per patient with Rezum were €2072 compared to €2836 with TURP, resulting in net savings of €764. Sensitivity analyses showed that this conclusion was robust. Replacing 10% of TURP procedures with Rezum generates cost-savings of € 7,139,549 over 4 years and saves 4671 theatre hours and 26,856 bed days in one year. Replacing 30% of BPH surgical procedures with Rezum generates cost-savings to € 21,418,647 over 4 years, saves 14,012 theatre hours and 80,567 bed-days in one year. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates that Rezum is highly likely to be cost-saving compared to TURP from an Italian hospital healthcare perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of andexanet alfa versus four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate for the treatment of oral factor Xa inhibitor-related intracranial hemorrhage in the US.

AIM: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) on the use of andexanet alfa for the treatment of factor Xa inhibitor-related intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) from the US third-party payer and societal perspectives. METHODS: CEA compared andexanet alfa to prothrombin complex concentrate for the treatment of patients receiving factor Xa inhibitors admitted to hospital inpatient care with an ICH. The model comprised two linked phases. Phase 1 utilized a decision tree to model the acute treatment phase (admission of a patient with ICH into intensive care for the first 30 days). Phase 2 modeled long-term costs and outcomes using three linked Markov models comprising the six health states defined by the modified Rankin score. RESULTS: The analysis showed that the strategy of using andexanet alfa for the treatment of factor Xa inhibitor-related ICH is cost-effective, with incremental cost-effectiveness per quality-adjusted life-year gained of $35,872 from a third-party payer perspective and $40,997 from a societal perspective over 20 years. LIMITATIONS: (1) Absence of head-to-head trials comparing therapies included in the economic model, (2) lack of comparative long-term data on treatment efficacy, and (3) bias resulting from the study designs of published literature. CONCLUSION: Given these results, the use of andexanet alfa for the reversal of anticoagulation in patients with factor Xa inhibitor-related ICH may improve quality of life and is likely to be cost-effective in a US context.