Comparative Cost-effectiveness of Surgery, Collagenase Clostridium Histolyticum, and Penile Traction Therapy in Men with Peyronie’s Disease in an Era of Effective Clinical Treatment

Abstract

Background: Traditionally, surgery has been considered the gold standard treatment for Peyronie’s disease (PD). Less-invasive alternatives, such as collagenase Clostridium histolyticum (CCH) and traction therapy, have been proposed and proven effective. Aim: To compare cost-effectiveness of management options for PD. Methods: A Markov analytic model was created to compare the cost-effectiveness of treatment with a novel traction device, RestoreX (RXPTT), vs CCH vs surgery. Outcomes were derived from single-institution, prospective data of 63 men treated with RXPTT, 115 with CCH, and 23 with plication or incision and grafting. Costs were based on 2017 Medicare reimbursement and utility values from the literature. Main Outcome Measures: Model outcomes included complications for each treatment arm, as well as the probability of success, which was defined as ≥20% improvement in curvature. Univariable and multivariable sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. Results: Overall success rates were 96% (surgery), 66% (CCH), and 48% (RXPTT). At 10 years after treatment, RXPTT was the most cost-effective, with mean costs per patient of $883 (RXPTT), $11,419 (surgery), and $33,628 (CCH). CCH and surgery both resulted in a gain of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) relative to RXPTT (9.44 and 9.36 vs 9.27, respectively). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated greater cost-effectiveness for surgery if lower (≤46%) rates of postoperative erectile dysfunction or length loss (≤3%). CCH became more cost-effective at lower costs (≤$16,726) or higher success rates (≥76%). On multivariable sensitivity analysis at a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, the most cost-effective strategy was RXPTT in 49%, surgery in 48%, and CCH in 3% of simulations. At a willingness to treat threshold of $150,000/QALY, the most cost-effective treatment option was RXPTT in 33%, surgery in 55%, and CCH in 12% of simulations. Clinical Implications: In an era of value-based care, this model can guide cost-effective treatment selection on the basis of provider, patient, and payer characteristics. Strengths & Limitations: The current study represents the first cost-effectiveness comparison of treatment modalities for PD and is strengthened by prospective data collection, large CCH and traction sample sizes, and robust sensitivity analyses. Consistent with cost-effective models, the model is limited by assumptions and may not apply to all scenarios. Conclusions: RXPTT represents a more cost-effective method for achieving ≥20% curvature improvement compared with surgery or CCH. Depending on treatment goals, rate of surgical complications, and willingness to pay threshold, surgery and CCH may become more cost-effective in select scenarios.