Dataset Information

Endoscopic urethrotomy versus open urethroplasty for men with bulbar urethral stricture: the OPEN randomised trial cost-effectiveness analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Bulbar urethral stricture is a common cause for urinary symptoms in men and its two main treatment options both have drawbacks with little evidence on their relative cost-effectiveness. Current guidelines on the management of recurrent bulbar urethral stricture have been predominantly based on expert opinion and panel consensus.

Objective

To assess the relative cost-effectiveness of open urethroplasty and endoscopic urethrotomy as treatment for recurrent urethral stricture in men.

Methods

Set in the UK National Health Service with recruitment from 38 hospital sites, a randomised controlled trial of open urethroplasty and endoscopic urethrotomy with 6-monthly follow-up over 24 months was conducted. Two hundred and twenty-two men requiring operative treatment for recurrence of bulbar urethral stricture and having had at least one previous intervention for stricture were recruited. Effectiveness was measured by quality- adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from EQ-5D 5L. Cost-effectiveness was measured by the incremental cost per QALY gained over 24 months using a within trial analysis and a Markov model with a 10-year time horizon.

Results

In the within trial, urethroplasty cost on average more than urethrotomy (cost difference: £2148 [95% CI 689, 3606]) and resulted in a similar number of QALYs on average (QALY difference: - 0.01 [95% CI - 0.17, 0.14)] over 24 months. The Markov model produced similar results. Sensitivity analyses using multiple imputation, suggested that the results were robust, despite observed missing data.

Conclusions

Based on current practice and evidence, urethrotomy is a cost-effective treatment compared with urethroplasty.

Keypoints

Urethrotomy and urethroplasty both led to symptom improvement for men with bulbar urethral stricture-a common cause for urinary symptoms in men; Urethroplasty appeared unlikely to offer good value for money compared to urethrotomy based on current evidence.

Trial registration

ISRCTN: 98009168 (date: 29 November 2012) and it is also in the UK NIHR Portfolio (reference 13507). Trial protocol: The latest version (1.8) of the full protocol is available at: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta/105723/ #/ and a published version is also available: Stephenson R, Carnell S, Johnson N, Brown R, Wilkinson J, Mundy A, et al. Open urethroplasty versus endoscopic urethrotomy-clarifying the management of men with recurrent urethral stricture (the OPEN trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2015;16:600. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-1120-4. Trial main clinical results publication: Goulao B, Carnell S, Shen J, MacLennan G, Norrie J, Cook J, et al. Surgical Treatment for Recurrent Bulbar Urethral Stricture: A Randomised Open-label Superiority Trial of Open Urethroplasty Versus Endoscopic Urethrotomy (the OPEN Trial), European Urology, Volume 78, Issue 4, 2020, Pages 572-580.

SUBMITTER: Shen J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8094457 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCarpal tunnel syndrome is the most common upper-extremity nerve compression syndrome. Over 500,000 carpal tunnel release (CTR) procedures are performed in the U.S. yearly. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic CTR (ECTR) versus open CTR (OCTR) using data from published meta-analyses comparing outcomes for ECTR and OCTR.MethodsWe developed a Markov model to examine the cost-effectiveness of OCTR versus ECTR for patients undergoing unilateral CTR in an office setting under local anesthesia and in an operating-room (OR) setting under monitored anesthesia care. The main outcomes were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We modeled societal (modeled with a 50-year-old patient) and Medicare payer (modeled with a 65-year-old patient) perspectives, adopting a lifetime time horizon. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs).ResultsECTR resulted in 0.00141 additional QALY compared with OCTR. From a societal perspective, assuming 8.21 fewer days of work missed after ECTR than after OCTR, ECTR cost less across all procedure settings. The results are sensitive to the number of days of work missed following surgery. From a payer perspective, ECTR in the OR (ECTROR) cost $1,872 more than OCTR in the office (OCTRoffice), for an ICER of approximately $1,332,000/QALY. The ECTROR cost $654 more than the OCTROR, for an ICER of $464,000/QALY. The ECTRoffice cost $107 more than the OCTRoffice, for an ICER of $76,000/QALY. From a payer perspective, for a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, OCTRoffice was preferred over ECTROR in 77% of the PSA iterations. From a societal perspective, ECTROR was preferred over OCTRoffice in 61% of the PSA iterations.ConclusionsFrom a societal perspective, ECTR is associated with lower costs as a result of an earlier return to work and leads to higher QALYs. Additional research on return to work is needed to confirm these findings on the basis of contemporary return-to-work practices. From a payer perspective, ECTR is more expensive and is cost-effective only if performed in an office setting under local anesthesia.Level of evidenceEconomic and Decision Analysis Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Project description:ContextOral mucosa graft (OMG) and penile skin flap (PSF) are common substitutions in urethroplasty; however, the recommended substitution for anterior urethral strictures remains uncertain.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of OMG and PSF in anterior urethral strictures in terms of success rate and prevalence of postvoid dribbling based on current studies.Evidence acquisitionA systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and registered at PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022313879). All publications until March 1, 2022, were searched in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases without any restriction. Studies that focused on patients with anterior urethral strictures undergoing single-stage augmentation urethroplasty with OMG and PSF, and reported comparable success rates between the two substitutions were included.Evidence synthesisThirteen studies involving a total of 1216 patients were included in the screening procedures, and 12 studies were eventually included in the meta-analysis. No significant difference in success rates was identified between OMG and PSF (odds ratio [OR]: 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96-2.07, p = 0.08). No significant difference was observed in the comparison of success rates in penile urethral strictures (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.53-1.70, p = 0.86) and in the comparison of postvoid dribbling (OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.31-1.11, p = 0.10). However, a subgroup analysis suggested that OMG had a higher success rate than PSF in studies with the top 50% sample size (six studies, OR: 1.678, 95% CI: 1.055-2.668, p = 0.029) and the top 50% follow-up period (five studies, OR: 2.279, 95% CI: 1.193-4.352, p = 0.013).ConclusionsOMG provides the same success rate and postvoid dribbling as PSF. However, based on the existing evidence, OMG is more likely to perform better in a cohort with long-term follow-up and a relatively large sample size. More studies on the two substitutions are necessary to evaluate the factors of urethroplasty success rate, performance of substitutions in penile urethral strictures, and indicators of quality of life.Patient summaryIn this research, we compared the outcomes of oral mucosa graft (OMG) and penile skin flap for urethroplasty in anterior urethral stricture patients in 13 studies. We found that these were similar in terms of success rate and postvoid dribbling. However, OMG could probably provide a higher success rate when the studies had more patients or a longer follow-up period.