[Intra-prostatic UroLift(®) implants for benign prostatic hyperplasia: preliminary results of the four first cases performed in France]

The Urolift System for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Secondary to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance

As part of its Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Neotract (manufacturer) to submit clinical and economic evidence for their prostatic urethral lift device, Urolift, for the relief of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS BPH). The Urolift System uses implants to retract the prostatic lobe away from the urethral lumen. The clinical evidence used in the manufacturer's submission shows that Urolift is effective for the treatment of BPH. Urolift delivers a weighted mean International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) improvement of between 9.22 and 11.82 points. These Urolift improvements are greater than a published 'marked improvement' in IPSS score of 8.80. Comparison with randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of TURP (Transurethral Resection of Prostate) and HoLEP (Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate) show that Urolift does not yield better clinical outcomes from baseline compared to TURP and HoLEP in terms of IPSS, QoL (Quality of Life) and Qmax (maximum urinary flow). However, Urolift appears to have the advantage in terms of minimal and mild complications, and this may be of interest to patients and urologists. The economic case for Urolift was made using a very detailed and thorough de novo cost model. The base case posed by the manufacturer placed Urolift at almost cost-neutral (£3 cost incurring, based on 2014 prices) compared to TURP, and £418 cost incurring compared to HoLEP. In an additional scenario comparing day-case Urolift with in-patient TURP, the estimated per-patient savings with Urolift were £286 compared with monopolar TURP (mTURP) and £159 compared with bipolar TURP (BiTURP). NICE guidance MTG26 recommends that the case for adoption of Urolift was supported by the evidence, when implemented in a day-case setting.

Prostatic Urethral Lift: A New Minimally Invasive Treatment for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Secondary to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

INTRODUCTION

Prostatic urethral lift (PUL) is a minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTSs) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The PUL procedure involves the placement of implants that retract the obstructing prostate lobes. This procedure achieves quantifiable improvements in functional outcomes and quality of life (QoL), while preserving erectile and ejaculatory functions.

METHODS

Seventeen patients diagnosed with BPH who had undergone the UroLift® procedure between March 2011 and June 2015 were retrospectively evaluated. The parameters evaluated in the pre-operative, intra-operative and 1-year post-operative period were demographic data, and pre-operative, intra-operative and 1-year post-operative results were obtained from the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Uroflowmetry QoL index, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and Male Sexual Health Questionnaire (MSHQ) for ejaculatory function (MSHQ-EjD).

RESULTS

The average improvements from baseline to 12 months after intervention were significant for the total IPSS 9.6. There was a 4.2-point increase in Qmax, a 0.9-point improvement in QoL and a 32% decrease in PVR. No statistically significant difference was found in the IIEF and MSHQ-EjD scores when the pre-operative and post-operative 3rd and 12th month scores were evaluated (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

PUL offers rapid improvement in voiding and storage symptoms, QoL and flow rate that is durable to 12 months after intervention. PUL is a minimally invasive procedure that has the moderate effect in treating troublesome LUTS secondary to benign prostatic obstruction and preserving total sexual function.

Efficacy and safety of the urolift® system for the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia symptoms: systematic review

CONTEXT

Interest in having alternatives in the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of the Urolift® system for treating the symptoms of benign prostate hyperplasia.

ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review of the literature through searches on PubMed, Cochrane Library, CRD, Clinical Trials and EuroScan, collecting indicators of efficacy and safety.

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

We included 5 case series and one clinical trial. The patients' mean age ranged from 65-74.3 years, and the mean prostate volume was 41-55cm3. The mean number of Urolif® implants was 3.7-5.5. The maximum follow-up in months was 24, 12 (3 studies) and one (2 studies). Improvements were found in lower urinary tract symptoms, as measured with the International Prostate Symptom Score, Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Impact Index (BPHII), maximum urinary flow (Qmax) and postvoid residual (PVR) volume. Improvements were in found sexual dysfunction symptoms, as measured with the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) and the Male Sexual Health Questionnaire or Ejaculatory Dysfunction (MHSQ-EjD), and in quality of life (QoL). In the clinical trial, the differences were significant for International Prostate Symptom Score, BPHII, Qmax and QoL (p<.05). The adverse effects were mild.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the quality of evidence is low, Urolift® constitutes a good therapeutic alternative for patients with benign prostate hyperplasia. The short to medium-term results show that the technique contributes to improving lower urinary tract symptoms, with no relevant side effects, does not affect sexual function and improves quality of life. Further research is required, especially on long-term results.

Effect of an employer-sponsored health and wellness program on medical cost and utilization

The objective of this study was to examine the impact of PepsiCo's health and wellness program on medical cost and utilization. The authors analyzed health plan and program data of employees and dependents 19-64 years of age, who had 2 years of baseline data (2002 and 2003) and at least 1 year of data from the intervention period (2004 to 2007), resulting in a sample of 55,030 members. Program effects were measured using a difference-in-difference approach based on a multivariate regression model with an individual-level random effect. In its first year, the program was associated with a relative increase in per member per month (PMPM) cost ($66, P<0.01); a relative reduction in PMPM costs of $76 (P<0.01) and $61 (P<0.01) was seen in the second and third year, respectively. Over all 3 years, the program was associated with reduced PMPM costs of $38 (P<0.01), a decrease of 50 emergency room visits per 1000 member years (P<0.01), and a decrease of 16 hospital admissions per 1000 member years (P<0.01). The disease management component reduced PMPM costs by $154 (P<0.01), case management increased PMPM costs by $2795 (P<0.01), but no significant effects were observed for lifestyle management over the 3 intervention years. The implementation of a comprehensive health and wellness program was associated with a cost increase in the first year, followed by a decrease in the following years. These results highlight the importance of taking a long-term perspective when implementing such programs and evaluating their effectiveness.