Hyldgård Vibe Bolvig, Laursen Karin Rosenkilde, Poulsen Johan, Søgaard Rikke
Health Economics, DEFACTUM, Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark.
Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
BMJ Open. 2017 Jul 21;7(7):e015580. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015580.
To estimate costs attributable to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) as compared with open prostatectomy (OP) and laparoscopic prostatectomies (LP) in a National Health Service perspective.
Register-based cohort study of 4309 consecutive patients who underwent prostatectomy from 2006 to 2013 (2241 RALP, 1818 OP and 250 LP). Patients were followed from 12 months before to 12 months after prostatectomy with respect to service use in primary care (general practitioners, therapists, specialists etc) and hospitals (inpatient and outpatient activity related to prostatectomy and comorbidity). Tariffs of the activity-based remuneration system for primary care and the Diagnosis-Related Grouping case-mix system for hospital-based care were used to value service use. Costs attributable to RALP were estimated using a difference-in-difference analytical approach and adjusted for patient-level and hospital-level risk selection using multilevel regression.
No significant effect of RALP on resource-use was observed except for a marginally lower use of primary care and fewer bed days as compared with OP (not LP). The overall cost consequence of RALP was estimated at an additional €2459 (95% CI 1377 to 3540, p=0.003) as compared with OP and an additional €3860 (95% CI 559 to 7160, p=0.031) as compared with LP, mainly due to higher cost intensity during the index admissions.
In this study from the Danish context, the use of RALP generates a factor 1.3 additional cost when compared with OP and a factor 1.6 additional cost when compared with LP, on average, based on 12 months follow-up. The policy interpretation is that the use of robots for prostatectomy should be driven by clinical superiority and that formal effectiveness analysis is required to determine whether the current and eventual new purchasing of robot capacity is best used for prostatectomy.
从英国国家医疗服务体系的角度,评估与开放性前列腺切除术(OP)和腹腔镜前列腺切除术(LP)相比,机器人辅助腹腔镜前列腺切除术(RALP)的成本。
基于登记的队列研究,纳入了2006年至2013年连续接受前列腺切除术的4309例患者(2241例行RALP,1818例行OP,250例行LP)。对患者从前列腺切除术前12个月至术后12个月进行随访,记录其在初级保健(全科医生、治疗师、专科医生等)和医院(与前列腺切除术及合并症相关的住院和门诊活动)中的服务使用情况。采用基于活动的初级保健薪酬系统的费率以及基于医院护理的诊断相关分组病例组合系统来评估服务使用情况。使用差分分析方法估计RALP的成本,并通过多水平回归对患者层面和医院层面的风险选择进行调整。
与OP(而非LP)相比,除了初级保健使用略少和住院天数略少外,未观察到RALP对资源使用有显著影响。与OP相比,RALP的总体成本结果估计额外增加2459欧元(95%可信区间1377至3540,p = 0.003),与LP相比额外增加3860欧元(95%可信区间559至7160,p = 0.031),主要是由于首次住院期间成本强度较高。
在这项来自丹麦背景的研究中,基于12个月的随访,平均而言,与OP相比,使用RALP会使成本增加1.3倍,与LP相比会使成本增加1.6倍。政策解读是,前列腺切除术使用机器人应由临床优势驱动,并且需要进行正式的有效性分析,以确定当前及最终新购置的机器人设备是否最适合用于前列腺切除术。