Cost-effectiveness of alternative first- and second-line treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia in Singapore.

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSION

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.