Cost-effectiveness of direct surgery versus preoperative octreotide therapy for growth-hormone secreting pituitary adenomas

Purpose The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of preoperative octreotide therapy followed by surgery versus the standard treatment modality for growth-hormone secreting pituitary adenomas, direct surgery (that is, surgery without preoperative treatment) from a public third-party payer perspective. Methods We developed an individual-level state-transition microsimulation model to simulate costs and outcomes associated with preoperative octreotide therapy followed by surgery and direct surgery for patients with growth-hormone secreting pituitary adenomas. Transition probabilities, utilities, and costs were estimated from recent published data and discounted by 3% annually over a lifetime time horizon. Model outcomes included lifetime costs [2020 United States (US) Dollars], quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results Under base case assumptions, direct surgery was found to be the dominant strategy as it yielded lower costs and greater health effects (QALYs) compared to preoperative octreotide strategy in the second-order Monte Carlo microsimulation. The ICER was most sensitive to probability of remission following primary therapy and duration of preoperative octreotide therapy. Accounting for joint parameter uncertainty, direct surgery had a higher probability of demonstrating a cost-effective profile compared to preoperative octreotide treatment at 77% compared to 23%, respectively. Conclusions Using standard benchmarks for cost-effectiveness in the US ($100,000/QALY), preoperative octreotide therapy followed by surgery may not be cost-effective compared to direct surgery for patients with growth-hormone secreting pituitary adenomas but the result is highly sensitive to initial treatment failure and duration of preoperative treatment.