Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness of surgical interventions for BPH. Methods: Using a Markov model, a cost-utility analysis was performed comparing HoLEP, B-TURP, WVTT, and PUL for prostate size <80cc (index patient 1) and HoLEP and SP for prostate size >80cc (index patient 2). Model probabilities and utility values were drawn from the literature. Analysis was performed at a 5-year time horizon with extrapolation to a lifetime horizon. Primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), 2021 Medicare costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: At 5 years, costs per patient for index patient 1 were $3292 (WVTT), $6532 (HoLEP), $6670 (B-TURP), and $10,257 (PUL). HoLEP resulted in the highest QALYs (4.66), followed by B-TURP (4.60), PUL (4.38), and WVTT (4.38). This translated to HoLEP being most cost-effective (ICER $11,847). For index patient 2, HoLEP was less costly ($6,585 vs $15,404) and more effective (4.654 vs 4.650) relative to SP. On sensitivity analysis for index patient 1, B-TURP became most cost-effective if cost of HoLEP increased two-fold or chronic stress incontinence following HoLEP increased ten-fold. When follow-up time was varied, WVTT was preferred at very short follow up (<1 year), and HoLEP became more strongly preferred with longer follow up. Conclusion: At 5 years follow up, HoLEP is a cost-effective surgical treatment for BPH- independent of gland size.
ASJC Scopus subject areas