Cost-Effectiveness of Combination Therapy Versus Monotherapy in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Colombian Experience.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pharmacological treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia from the payer's perspective. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of 5 mg finasteride, 0.5 mg dutasteride, 10 mg alfuzosin, 10 mg terazosin, 0.4 mg tamsulosin, 4 mg doxazosin, and the combination therapy of 5 mg finasteride and 8 mg doxazosin was evaluated using a Markov model over a 30-year period. The costs were estimated using national tariffs and were reported in US dollars. Cost and effectiveness outcomes were discounted at a rate of 5% per year. Men (aged ≥40 years) with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms and uncomplicated benign prostatic hyperplasia were included in the analysis. Outcomes included costs and quality-adjusted life-years. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed on important parameters with Monte-Carlo simulation. RESULTS: Finasteride alone or in combination with doxazosin dominated all α-blockers. After excluding dominated alternatives, the incremental cost-utility ratio for combination therapy was $377 per quality-adjusted life-year, being a cost-effective alternative using the threshold of $15 000. Model results were robust to changes in costs, utility weights, and probabilities. Acceptability curves consistently demonstrated that the combination therapy was most likely cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of finasteride and doxazosin is cost-effective compared with dutasteride, tamsulosin, terazosin, and alfuzosin in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia with moderate or severe symptoms who are older than 40 years.

Use of drug therapy in the management of symptomatic ureteric stones in hospitalised adults: a multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis of a calcium channel blocker (nifedipine) and an alpha-blocker (tamsulosin) (the SUSPEND trial).

BACKGROUND: Ureteric colic, the term used to describe the pain felt when a stone passes down the ureter from the kidney to the bladder, is a frequent reason for people to seek emergency health care. Treatment with the muscle-relaxant drugs tamsulosin hydrochloride (Petyme, TEVA UK Ltd) and nifedipine (Coracten(®), UCB Pharma Ltd) as medical expulsive therapy (MET) is increasingly being used to improve the likelihood of spontaneous stone passage and lessen the need for interventional procedures. However, there remains considerable uncertainty around the effectiveness of these drugs for routine use. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not treatment with either tamsulosin 400 µg or nifedipine 30 mg for up to 4 weeks increases the rate of spontaneous stone passage for people with ureteric colic compared with placebo, and whether or not it is cost-effective for the UK NHS. DESIGN: A pragmatic, randomised controlled trial comparing two active drugs, tamsulosin and nifedipine, against placebo. Participants, clinicians and trial staff were blinded to treatment allocation. A cost-utility analysis was performed using data gathered during trial participation. SETTING: Urology departments in 24 UK NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged between 18 and 65 years admitted as an emergency with a single ureteric stone measuring ≤ 10 mm, localised by computerised tomography, who were able to take trial medications and complete trial procedures. INTERVENTIONS: Eligible participants were randomised 1 : 1 : 1 to take tamsulosin 400 µg, nifedipine 30 mg or placebo once daily for up to 4 weeks to make the following comparisons: tamsulosin or nifedipine (MET) versus placebo and tamsulosin versus nifedipine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary effectiveness outcome was the proportion of participants who spontaneously passed their stone. This was defined as the lack of need for active intervention for ureteric stones at up to 4 weeks after randomisation. This was determined from 4- and 12-week case-report forms completed by research staff, and from the 4-week participant self-reported questionnaire. The primary economic outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over 12 weeks. We estimated costs from NHS sources and calculated QALYs from participant completion of the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions health status questionnaire 3-level response (EQ-5D-3L™) at baseline, 4 weeks and 12 weeks. RESULTS: Primary outcome analysis included 97% of the 1167 participants randomised (378/391 tamsulosin, 379/387 nifedipine and 379/399 placebo participants). The proportion of participants who spontaneously passed their stone did not differ between MET and placebo [odds ratio (OR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.43; absolute difference 0.8%, 95% CI -4.1% to 5.7%] or between tamsulosin and nifedipine [OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.53; absolute difference 1%, 95% CI -4.6% to 6.6%]. There was no evidence of a difference in QALYs gained or in cost between the trial groups, which means that the use of MET would be very unlikely to be considered cost-effective. These findings were unchanged by extensive sensitivity analyses around predictors of stone passage, including sex, stone size and stone location. CONCLUSIONS: Tamsulosin and nifedipine did not increase the likelihood of stone passage over 4 weeks for people with ureteric colic, and use of these drugs is very unlikely to be cost-effective for the NHS. Further work is required to investigate the phenomenon of large, high-quality trials showing smaller effect size than meta-analysis of several small, lower-quality studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN69423238. European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT) number 2010-019469-26. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Use of drug therapy in the management of symptomatic ureteric stones in hospitalized adults (SUSPEND), a multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of a calcium-channel blocker (nifedipine) and an α-blocker (tamsulosin): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Urinary stone disease is common, with an estimated prevalence among the general population of 2% to 3%. Ureteric stones can cause severe pain and have a significant impact on quality of life, accounting for over 15,000 hospital admissions in England annually. Uncomplicated cases of smaller stones in the lower ureter are traditionally treated expectantly. Those who fail standard care or develop complications undergo active treatment, such as extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy with stone retrieval. Such interventions are expensive, require urological expertise and carry a risk of complications.Growing understanding of ureteric function and pathophysiology has led to the hypothesis that drugs causing relaxation of ureteric smooth muscle, such as the selective α-blocker tamsulosin and the calcium-channel blocker nifedipine, can enhance the spontaneous passage of ureteric stones. The use of drugs in augmenting stone passage, reducing the morbidity and costs associated with ureteric stone disease, is promising. However, the majority of clinical trials conducted to date have been small, poor to moderate quality and lacking in comprehensive economic evaluation.This trial aims to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of tamsulosin and nifedipine in the management of symptomatic urinary stones. METHODS/DESIGN: The SUSPEND (Spontaneous Urinary Stone Passage ENabled by Drugs) trial is a multicentre, double-blind, randomized controlled trial evaluating two medical expulsive therapy strategies (nifedipine or tamsulosin) versus placebo.Patients aged 18 to 65 with a ureteric stone confirmed by non-contrast computed tomography of the kidney, ureter and bladder will be randomized to receive nifedipine, tamsulosin or placebo (400 participants per arm) for a maximum of 28 days. The primary clinical outcome is spontaneous passage of ureteric stones at 4 weeks (defined as no further intervention required to facilitate stone passage). The primary economic outcome is a reduction in the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years, determined at 12 weeks. The analysis will be based on all participants as randomized (intention to treat). The trial has 90% power with a type I error rate of 5% to detect a 10% increase in primary outcome between the tamsulosin and nifedipine treatment groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN69423238; EudraCT number: 2010-019469-26.

Expulsive therapy versus early endoscopic stone removal in patients with acute renal colic: a comparison of indirect costs.

PURPOSE: While medical expulsive therapy is associated with lower health care expenditures compared to early endoscopic stone removal in patients with renal colic, little is known about the effect of medical expulsive therapy on indirect costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a previously validated claims based algorithm we identified a cohort of patients with acute renal colic. After determining the up-front treatment type (ie an initial course of medical expulsive therapy vs early endoscopic stone removal) we compared differences in rates of short-term disability filing. We used propensity score matching to account for differences between treatment groups such that patients treated with medical expulsive therapy vs early endoscopic stone removal were similar with regard to measured characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 257 (35.8%) and 461 (64.2%) patients were treated with medical expulsive therapy or early endoscopic stone removal, respectively. There were no differences between treatment groups after propensity score matching. In the matched cohort the patients treated with medical expulsive therapy had a 6% predicted probability of filing a claim for short-term disability compared to 16.5% in the early endoscopic stone removal cohort (p <0.0001). Among the patients who filed for short-term disability those prescribed medical expulsive therapy had on average 1 fewer day of disability than those treated surgically (0.9 vs 1.8 days, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: An initial trial of medical expulsive therapy is associated with significantly lower indirect costs to the patient compared to early endoscopic stone removal. These findings have implications for providers when counseling patients with acute renal colic.

Urapidil in the preoperative treatment of pheochromocytomas: a safe and cost-effective method.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for pheochromocytoma may lead to uncontrolled catecholamine secretion with severe hypertension and cardiac failure. Perioperative α1-receptor-blockade with orally administered phenoxybenzamine or intravenous urapidil therefore is a standard procedure in the treatment regime prior to surgery. METHODS: Medical records of 30 patients who underwent surgery for pheochromocytoma during the years 2002-2011 were retrospectively analyzed. We investigated the difference in the clinical course of patients undergoing surgery for pheochromocytoma with either phenoxybenzamine or urapidil pretreatment with special regard to the intraoperative course and length of hospital stay and costs. RESULTS: Nineteen (16 female, 3 male) patients (63 %) received a preoperative α-block with orally administered phenoxybenzamine. Eleven patients (6 female, 5 male) (37 %) were treated with intravenous urapidil for 3 days prior to surgery. Intraoperative episodes of hypertension or hypotension did not differ significantly. The median total hospital stay in phenoxybenzamine-treated patients was 17 days in contrast to 11 days in the urapidil group (p = 0.0087). Patients who received i.v. pretreatment spent significantly fewer days in the hospital prior to operation [median: 3 days (range: 3-7 days) versus 9 days (range: 3-21 days); p = 0.0001]. The reduction in the number of days in the hospital in the urapidil group led to a significantly elevated revenue per day (637.49/day versus 412.50/day; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative treatment with the selective α1 blocker urapidil remains a simple and cost effective method in the treatment regime of patients with pheochromocytoma.

Cost-effectiveness of single-dose tamsulosin and dutasteride combination therapy compared with tamsulosin monotherapy in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of single-dose dutasteride/tamsulosin combination therapy as a first-line treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: A Markov state transition model was developed to estimate healthcare costs and patient outcomes, measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), for patients aged ≥50 years with diagnosed BPH and moderate to severe symptoms. Costs and outcomes were estimated for two treatment comparators: oral, daily, single-dose combination therapy (dutasteride 0.5 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg), and oral daily tamsulosin (0.4 mg) over a period up to 25 years. The efficacy of comparators was taken from results of the Combination of Avodart and Tamsulosin (CombAT) trial. RESULTS: Cumulative discounted costs per patient were higher with combination therapy than with tamsulosin, but QALYs were also higher. After 25 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for combination therapy was £12,219, well within the threshold range (£20,000-£30,000 per QALY) typically applied in the NHS. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of combination therapy being cost-effective given the threshold range is between 78% and 88%. CONCLUSION: Single-dose combination dutasteride/tamsulosin therapy has a high probability of being cost-effective in comparison to tamsulosin monotherapy in the UK's NHS.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of medical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia in the Brazilian public health system.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of medical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) under Brazilian public health system perspective (Unified Health System--"Sistema Unico de Saude (SUS)"). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A revision of the literature of the medical treatment of BPH using alpha-blockers, 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors and combinations was carried out. A panel of specialists defined the use of public health resources during episodes of acute urinary retention (AUR), the treatment and the evolution of these patients in public hospitals. A model of economic analysis (Markov) predicted the number of episodes of AUR and surgeries (open prostatectomy and transurethral resection of the prostate) related to BPH according to stages of evolution of the disease. Brazilian currency was converted to American dollars according to the theory of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP 2010: US$ 1 = R$ 1.70). RESULTS: The use of finasteride reduced 59.6% of AUR episodes and 57.9% the need of surgery compared to placebo, in a period of six years and taking into account a treatment discontinuity rate of 34%. The mean cost of treatment was R$ 764.11 (US$ 449.78) and R$ 579.57 (US$ 340.92) per patient in the finasteride and placebo groups, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICERs) was R$ 4.130 (US$ 2.429) per episode of AUR avoided and R$ 2.735 (US$ 1.609) per episode of surgery avoided. The comparison of finasteride + doxazosine to placebo showed a reduction of 75.7% of AUR episodes and 66.8% of surgeries in a 4 year time horizon, with a ICERs of R$ 21.191 (US$ 12.918) per AUR episodes avoided and R$ 11.980 (US$ 7.047) per surgery avoided. In the sensitivity analysis the adhesion rate to treatment and the cost of finasteride were the main variables that influenced the results. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the treatment of BPH with finasteride is cost-effective compared to placebo in the Brazilian public health system perspective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of medical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia in the Brazilian public health system

OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of medical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) under Brazilian public health system perspective (Unified Health System - "Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS)"). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A revision of the literature of the medical treatment of BPH using alpha-blockers, 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors and combinations was carried out. A panel of specialists defined the use of public health resources during episodes of acute urinary retention (AUR), the treatment and the evolution of these patients in public hospitals. A model of economic analysis(Markov) predicted the number of episodes of AUR and surgeries (open prostatectomy and transurethral resection of the prostate) related to BPH according to stages of evolution of the disease. Brazilian currency was converted to American dollars according to the theory of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP 2010: US$ 1 = R$ 1.70). RESULTS: The use of finasteride reduced 59.6% of AUR episodes and 57.9% the need of surgery compared to placebo, in a period of six years and taking into account a treatment discontinuity rate of 34%. The mean cost of treatment was R$ 764.11 (US$449.78) and R$ 579.57 (US$ 340.92) per patient in the finasteride and placebo groups, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICERs) was R$ 4.130 (US$ 2.429) per episode of AUR avoided and R$ 2.735 (US$ 1.609) per episode of surgery avoided. The comparison of finasteride + doxazosine to placebo showed a reduction of 75.7% of AUR episodes and 66.8% of surgeries in a 4 year time horizon, with a ICERs of R$ 21.191 (US$ 12.918) per AUR episodes avoided and R$ 11.980 (US$ 7.047) per surgery avoided. In the sensitivity analysis the adhesion rate to treatment and the cost of finasteride were the main variables that influenced the results. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the treatment of BPH with finasteride is cost-effective compared to placebo in the Brazilian public health system perspective.

[Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of combination therapy with dutasteride and α1 blocker for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia in Japan].

The cost-effectiveness of combination therapy with an α1 blocker and dutasteride in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) was analyzed in comparison with α1 blocker monotherapy. A Markov model with seven health states related to BPH was constructed with 4-year and 10-year time horizons and from the entire payers perspective. The transition probabilities among different health states input into the model were mainly derived from CombAT Study data, while cost parameters were estimated from a clinical database including DPC claims. Effectiveness was defined as quality adjusted life year (QALY). The cost-effectiveness of combination therapy was assessed by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold (6 to 7 million Japanese yen (JPY)/QALY gained). For a base-case analysis, combination therapy produced an incremental effectiveness versus monotherapy of 0.050 and 0.097 QALYs at 4 years and 10 years, respectively, while the concomitant incremental costs were estimated to be 257,172 and 579,908 JPY, respectively. The ICERs for combination therapy versus monotherapy calculated at 4 years and 10 years were 5,119,007 and 5,974,495 JPY/QALY gained, respectively, both below the acceptable ICER threshold. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the ICER tended to decrease with greater BPH severity. These findings suggest that combination therapy with an α1 blocker and dutasteride would be more cost-effective in BPH than α1 blocker monotherapy and more efficient in moderate-to-severe BPH.

Cost-effectiveness of combination therapy for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a model based on the findings of the Combination of Avodart and Tamsulosin trial.

OBJECTIVE: • To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of combination therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) compared with alpha-blocker (AB), 5-alpha reductase inhibitor (5ARI) monotherapy or watchful waiting (WW) in male patients enrolled in the Combination of Avodart and Tamsulosin (CombAT) trial using a Norwegian economic model. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • A decision analytic model was constructed to evaluate the BPH treatment regimens using point estimate base-case analyses, one-way sensitivity testing and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. • Symptom severity and acute urinary retention/transurethral resection of the prostate (AUR/TURP) event data came from the 4-year evaluation of the CombAT trial with additional data from the Medical Therapy of Prostatic Symptoms (MTOPS) trial. The model makes use of Norwegian practice pattern data and unit cost and utility estimates were taken from the published literature. • The model calculates treatment costs and utility outcomes at two time horizons: 4 years and lifetime. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using WW as the basis of comparison. Costs and health state utilities were discounted after the first year. RESULTS: • At 4 years, ICER results for combination therapy are higher than AB monotherapy as a result of the higher drug cost, but the overall cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) differences are small. • At the lifetime evaluation, the ICER results decrease from those at the 4-year horizon, although AB monotherapy remains less expensive than combination therapy. However, the incremental QALYs gained for combination therapy are twice those of AB monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: • The model is sensitive to variability in estimates of health state utility assigned on the basis of symptom severity, indicating that both monotherapy and combination therapy have an advantage in maintaining patients in less severe symptom states. • Overall, combination therapy for BPH is expected to provide the greatest net monetary benefit at willingness-to-pay thresholds at or above ≈€6000 (£5400).