Cost-Effectiveness of Haemorrhoidal Artery Ligation versus Rubber Band Ligation for the Treatment of Grade II-III Haemorrhoids: Analysis Using Evidence from the HubBLe Trial.

Abstract

AimHaemorrhoids are a common condition, with nearly 30,000 procedures carried out in England in 2014/15, and result in a significant quality-of-life burden to patients and a financial burden to the healthcare system. This study examined the cost effectiveness of haemorrhoidal artery ligation (HAL) compared with rubber band ligation (RBL) in the treatment of grade II–III haemorrhoids.MethodThis analyses used data from the HubBLe study, a multicentre, open-label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial conducted in 17 acute UK hospitals between September 2012 and August 2015. A full economic evaluation, including long-term cost effectiveness, was conducted from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Main outcomes included healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and recurrence. Cost-effectiveness results were presented in terms of incremental cost per QALY gained and cost per recurrence avoided. Extrapolation analysis for 3 years beyond the trial follow-up, two subgroup analyses (by grade of haemorrhoids and recurrence following RBL at baseline), and various sensitivity analyses were undertaken.ResultsIn the primary base-case within-trial analysis, the incremental total mean cost per patient for HAL compared with RBL was £1027 (95% confidence interval [CI] £782–£1272, p < 0.001). The incremental QALYs were 0.01 QALYs (95% CI −0.02 to 0.04, p = 0.49). This generated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £104,427 per QALY. In the extrapolation analysis, the estimated probabilistic ICER was £21,798 per QALY. Results from all subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not materially change the base-case result.ConclusionsUnder all assessed scenarios, the HAL procedure was not cost effective compared with RBL for the treatment of grade II-III haemorrhoids at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY; therefore, economically, its use in the NHS should be questioned.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s41669-017-0023-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.