Anna Parackal1, Jean-Eric Tarride1,2, Feng Xie1,3, Gord Blackhouse1,4, Jennifer Hoogenes5, Edward D Matsumoto5, Danielle Hylton1,5, Wael Hanna1,5, Anthony Adili5, Bobby Shayegan5. 1. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 2. McMaster Chair in Health Technology Management, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 3. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 4. Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH), The Research Institute of St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 5. Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recent health technology assessments (HTAs) of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in Ontario and Alberta, Canada, resulted in opposite recommendations, calling into question whether benefits of RARP offset the upfront investment. Therefore, the study objectives were to conduct a cost-utility analysis from a Canadian public payer perspective to determine the cost-effectiveness of RARP. METHODS: Using a 10-year time horizon, a five-state Markov model was developed to compare RARP to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Clinical parameters were derived from Canadian observational studies and a recently published systematic review. Costs, resource utilization, and utility values from recent Canadian sources were used to populate the model. Results were presented in terms of increment costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. A probabilistic analysis was conducted, and uncertainty was represented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). One-way sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Future costs and QALYs were discounted at 1.5%. RESULTS: Total cost of RARP and ORP were $47 033 and $45 332, respectively. Total estimated QALYs were 7.2047 and 7.1385 for RARP and ORP, respectively. The estimated incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was $25 704 in the base-case analysis. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 and $100 000 per QALY gained, the probability of RARP being cost-effective was 0.65 and 0.85, respectively. The model was most sensitive to the time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis suggest that RARP is likely to be cost-effective in this Canadian patient population. The results are consistent with Alberta's HTA recommendation and other economic evaluations, but challenges Ontario's reimbursement decision.
INTRODUCTION: Recent health technology assessments (HTAs) of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in Ontario and Alberta, Canada, resulted in opposite recommendations, calling into question whether benefits of RARP offset the upfront investment. Therefore, the study objectives were to conduct a cost-utility analysis from a Canadian public payer perspective to determine the cost-effectiveness of RARP. METHODS: Using a 10-year time horizon, a five-state Markov model was developed to compare RARP to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Clinical parameters were derived from Canadian observational studies and a recently published systematic review. Costs, resource utilization, and utility values from recent Canadian sources were used to populate the model. Results were presented in terms of increment costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. A probabilistic analysis was conducted, and uncertainty was represented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). One-way sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Future costs and QALYs were discounted at 1.5%. RESULTS: Total cost of RARP and ORP were $47 033 and $45 332, respectively. Total estimated QALYs were 7.2047 and 7.1385 for RARP and ORP, respectively. The estimated incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was $25 704 in the base-case analysis. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 and $100 000 per QALY gained, the probability of RARP being cost-effective was 0.65 and 0.85, respectively. The model was most sensitive to the time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis suggest that RARP is likely to be cost-effective in this Canadian patient population. The results are consistent with Alberta's HTA recommendation and other economic evaluations, but challenges Ontario's reimbursement decision.
Authors: Yogita S Patel; Megan Kay; Isabella F Churchill; Kerrie A Sullivan; Yaron Shargall; Bobby Shayegan; Anthony Adili; Wael C Hanna Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2022-10-12 Impact factor: 2.840
Authors: David Cantarero-Prieto; Javier Lera; Paloma Lanza-Leon; Marina Barreda-Gutierrez; Vicente Guillem-Porta; Luis Castelo-Branco; Jose M Martin-Moreno Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-08-24 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Weibin Hou; Bingzhi Wang; Lei Zhou; Lan Li; Chao Li; Peng Yuan; Wei Ouyang; Hanyu Yao; Jin Huang; Kun Yao; Long Wang Journal: Front Surg Date: 2022-09-28