Cost-Effectiveness of Haemorrhoidal Artery Ligation versus Rubber Band Ligation for the Treatment of Grade II–III Haemorrhoids: Analysis Using Evidence from the HubBLe Trial

AIM Haemorrhoids are a common condition, with nearly 30,000 procedures carried out in England in 2014/15, and result in a significant quality-of-life burden to patients and a financial burden to the healthcare system. This study examined the cost effectiveness of haemorrhoidal artery ligation (HAL) compared with rubber band ligation (RBL) in the treatment of grade II-III haemorrhoids. METHOD This analyses used data from the HubBLe study, a multicentre, open-label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial conducted in 17 acute UK hospitals between September 2012 and August 2015. A full economic evaluation, including long-term cost effectiveness, was conducted from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Main outcomes included healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and recurrence. Cost-effectiveness results were presented in terms of incremental cost per QALY gained and cost per recurrence avoided. Extrapolation analysis for 3 years beyond the trial follow-up, two subgroup analyses (by grade of haemorrhoids and recurrence following RBL at baseline), and various sensitivity analyses were undertaken. RESULTS In the primary base-case within-trial analysis, the incremental total mean cost per patient for HAL compared with RBL was £1027 (95% confidence interval [CI] £782-£1272, p < 0.001). The incremental QALYs were 0.01 QALYs (95% CI -0.02 to 0.04, p = 0.49). This generated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £104,427 per QALY. In the extrapolation analysis, the estimated probabilistic ICER was £21,798 per QALY. Results from all subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not materially change the base-case result. CONCLUSIONS Under all assessed scenarios, the HAL procedure was not cost effective compared with RBL for the treatment of grade II-III haemorrhoids at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY; therefore, economically, its use in the NHS should be questioned.