Transurethral prostate resection, noncontact laser therapy or conservative management in men with symptoms of benign prostatic enlargement? An economic evaluation.

Abstract

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of noncontact laser therapy compared with transurethral prostate resection and conservative treatment in men with symptoms associated with benign prostatic enlargement. A total of 340 men with uncomplicated lower urinary tract symptoms participated in a large multicenter pragmatic randomized trial called the CLasP (Conservative management, Laser therapy, transurethral resection of the Prostate) study. Costs to the United Kingdom National Health Service and patients were determined from the time of randomization to the 7.5-month followup. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using conservative management as the base case were calculated for certain trial outcomes, including International Prostate Symptom Score (I-PSS), I-PSS quality of life score, maximum urinary flow, post-void residual urine volume, quality adjusted life-years and a composite measure of success based on I-PSS and maximum urinary flow. One-way sensitivity analysis of the basic costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were done from the NHS viewpoint. Mean costs per patient were greatest for noncontact laser therapy and least for conservative management. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios showed that transurethral prostate resection was more cost-effective than noncontact laser treatment for all primary trial outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of transurethral prostate resection compared with conservative management were pound 81 per unit decrease in the I-PSS score and pound 1,338 per additional successful case per 100 patients. Sensitivity analysis showed that the initial results were robust. Noncontact laser was the mostly costly treatment option. Transurethral prostate resection was more cost-effective than noncontact laser therapy in terms of symptomatic improvement. In men wishing to delay treatment conservative treatment appears to provide a cost-effective alternative in the short term.