Impact of Temporarily Implanted Nitinol Device in the Treatment of Urinary Symptoms in Patients With Benign Prostatic Obstruction in Spain
Author(s)
Iván Schwartzmann, MD1, Giorgio Buseghin, MsC2, Susana Aceituno Mata, MSc3.
1Fundació Puigverd, Barcelona, Spain, 2Olympus Europa SE & Co KG, Hamburg, Germany, 3Evidenze Health, Barcelona, Spain.
1Fundació Puigverd, Barcelona, Spain, 2Olympus Europa SE & Co KG, Hamburg, Germany, 3Evidenze Health, Barcelona, Spain.
OBJECTIVES: Benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) causes lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), commonly treated with medication or invasive surgery. Both approaches can negatively impact patients’ quality of life (QoL) and the healthcare system due to side effects and complications. Minimally invasive surgical therapies (MISTs) may reduce these burdens. This study evaluates the impact of a temporarily implanted nitinol device from the Spanish National Health System (SNHS) and patient perspectives.
METHODS: An Excel-based model was developed to compare the current management of LUTS due to BPO in Spain with alternative scenarios incorporating greater use of a temporary implanted nitinol device. The current scenario allocated patients between pharmacological treatment and surgery (invasive and MISTs). In alternative scenarios, 0-20% of patients shifted from pharmacological treatment to a temporarily implanted nitinol device, with the rest from surgery. In each scenario, resource use and costs (€ 2025) related to pharmacological treatment, side effects, surgeries, and complications, hospital bed occupancy and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), were assessed using epidemiological data, scientific publications, official tariffs, and expert input. Results were reported as differences between the current and alternative scenarios.
RESULTS: A population of 1,032,124 patients with LUTS due to BPO was estimated. In the current scenario, total costs were €716,291,817 (30% due to pharmacological treatment and side effects; 70% due to surgery and complications); hospital bed occupancy was 143,561 days; and 809,796 QALYs. Increasing the temporarily implanted nitinol device use by shifting 0-20% of patients from pharmacological treatment, could reduce total costs by 14% to 7%, avoid 63,059 to 50,057 hospital bed-days, and increase QALYs by 214 to 814, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The temporarily implantable nitinol device is an alternative treatment option for patients with LUTS due to BPO. Its increased use could generate cost savings for the SNHS, reduce hospital bed occupancy, and enhance patients' QoL.
METHODS: An Excel-based model was developed to compare the current management of LUTS due to BPO in Spain with alternative scenarios incorporating greater use of a temporary implanted nitinol device. The current scenario allocated patients between pharmacological treatment and surgery (invasive and MISTs). In alternative scenarios, 0-20% of patients shifted from pharmacological treatment to a temporarily implanted nitinol device, with the rest from surgery. In each scenario, resource use and costs (€ 2025) related to pharmacological treatment, side effects, surgeries, and complications, hospital bed occupancy and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), were assessed using epidemiological data, scientific publications, official tariffs, and expert input. Results were reported as differences between the current and alternative scenarios.
RESULTS: A population of 1,032,124 patients with LUTS due to BPO was estimated. In the current scenario, total costs were €716,291,817 (30% due to pharmacological treatment and side effects; 70% due to surgery and complications); hospital bed occupancy was 143,561 days; and 809,796 QALYs. Increasing the temporarily implanted nitinol device use by shifting 0-20% of patients from pharmacological treatment, could reduce total costs by 14% to 7%, avoid 63,059 to 50,057 hospital bed-days, and increase QALYs by 214 to 814, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The temporarily implantable nitinol device is an alternative treatment option for patients with LUTS due to BPO. Its increased use could generate cost savings for the SNHS, reduce hospital bed occupancy, and enhance patients' QoL.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
EE543
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Budget Impact Analysis
Disease
Urinary/Kidney Disorders