Cost-effectiveness of alternative first- and second-line treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia in Singapore
Creators: name: Chay, Junxing
name: Tung, Joshua Yi Min
name: Su, Rebecca Jade
name: Aslim, Edwin Jonathan
name: Wong, Callix
name: Swan, Georgia
name: Chua, Wei Jin
name: Ho, Henry Sun Sien
name: Finkelstein, Eric Andrew
Publisher: name: Taylor & Francis
Year: 2023
Subjects: subject: Medicine
subject: Genetics
subject: FOS: Biological sciences
subject: Pharmacology
subject: Biotechnology
subject: Cancer
subject: Science Policy

description: Minimally invasive surgical therapies, such as water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT) and prostatic urethral lift (PUL), are typically second-line options for patients in whom medical management (MM) failed but who are unwilling or unsuitable to undergo invasive transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). However, the incremental cost-effectiveness of WVTT or PUL as first- or second-line therapy is unknown. We evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness of alternative first- and second-line treatments for patients with moderate-to-severe benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in Singapore to help policymakers make subsidy decisions based on value for money. We considered six stepped-up treatment strategies, beginning with MM, WVTT, PUL or TURP. In each strategy, patients requiring retreatment advance to a more invasive treatment until TURP, which may be undergone twice. A Markov cohort model was used to simulate transitions between BPH severity states and retreatment, accruing costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over a lifetime horizon. In moderate patients, strategies beginning with MM had similar cost and effectiveness, and first-line WVTT was incrementally cost-effective to first-line MM (33,307 SGD/QALY). First-line TURP was not incrementally cost-effective to first-line WVTT (159,361 SGD/QALY). For severe patients, WVTT was incrementally cost-effective to MM as a first-line treatment (30,133 SGD/QALY) and to TURP as a second-line treatment following MM (6877 SGD/QALY). TURP was incrementally cost-effective to WVTT as a first-line treatment (48,209 SGD/QALY) in severe patients only. All pathways involving PUL were dominated (higher costs and lower QALYs). Based on the common willingness-to-pay threshold of SGD 50,000/QALY, this study demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of WVTT over MM as first-line treatment for patients with moderate or severe BPH, suggesting it represents good value for money and should be considered for subsidy. PUL is not cost-effective as a first- nor second-line treatment. For patients with severe BPH, TURP as first-line is also cost-effective. Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a non-cancerous enlargement of the prostate, common among older men. Its symptoms include difficulties with starting and completing urination, incontinence, frequent and urgent need to urinate. Minimally invasive procedures, such as water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT) and prostatic urethral lift (PUL), are typically offered as second-line options to patients for whom medication has failed but who are unwilling or unsuitable to undergo invasive surgery (transurethral resection of the prostate, TURP). However, whether offering these procedures as first-line options represents good value for money (i.e. cost-effectiveness) is an open question. To address this question and inform subsidy decisions in Singapore, we investigated six stepped-up treatment strategies which differ in first- and second-line treatments. For each strategy, we simulated healthcare costs and quality of life for a cohort of moderate and severe BPH patients over their lifetime, considering the possibility of treatment-related adverse effects and multiple rounds of retreatment. The incremental cost of a unit improvement in quality of life for a strategy relative to the next most expensive one was compared against a willingness-to-pay threshold to determine cost-effectiveness. We found that WVTT was cost-effective relative to medication as a first-line treatment for patients with moderate or severe BPH, suggesting it represents good value for money and should be considered for subsidy. PUL was not cost-effective as first- nor second-line treatment. TURP is cost-effective as first-line for severe BPH patients only.