Cost-utility of minimally invasive therapies vs pharmacotherapy as initial therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia: A Canadian healthcare payer perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recently, minimally invasive surgical therapies (MIST s) have become an alternative to surgery or pharmacotherapy to manage benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH ). This study evaluated the cost-utility of water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT ) and prostatic urethral lift (PUL) compared to pharmacotherapy as initial treatment for patients with moderate-to-severe BPH. METHODS: In this model-based economic evaluation, we simulated BPH progression in men (mean age 65 years, average International Prostate Symptom Score 16.6) over their lifetime and estimated healthcare costs (from the Canadian healthcare payer perspective) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), discounted at 1.5% annually. In the model, men could receive up to three lines of therapy: 1) initial pharmacotherapy with MIST as second-line, and TURP or pharmacotherapy as third-line; 2) initial MIST (WVTT or PUL) with MIST again, TURP, or pharmacotherapy as second-line, and TURP as third-line. The model was populated using data from the published literature. RESULTS: The expected lifetime QALYs and costs were 15.50 QALYs and $14 626 for initial treatment with WVTT, 15.35 QALYs and $11 795 for pharmacotherapy followed by WVTT, 15.29 QALYs and $13 582 for pharmacotherapy followed by PUL, and 15.29 QALYs and $19 151 for initial treatment with PUL. Strategies involving PUL procedures were dominated by strategies involving WVTT. The incremental cost per QALY gained was $18 873 for initial WVTT compared to initial pharmacotherapy followed by WVTT. CONCLUSIONS: who seek faster improvement and no lifelong commitment to daily medications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".