To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pessary therapy as an initial treatment option compared with surgery for moderate to severe pelvic organ prolapse (POP) symptoms in secondary care from a healthcare and a societal perspective.

Economic evaluation alongside a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with a 24-month follow-up.

21 hospitals in the Netherlands, recruitment conducted between 2015 and 2022.

1605 women referred to secondary care with symptomatic prolapse stage ≥2 were requested to participate. Of them, 440 women gave informed consent and were randomised to pessary therapy (n=218) or to surgery (n=222) in a 1:1 ratio stratified by hospital.

Pessary therapy and surgery.

The Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), a 7-point scale dichotomised into successful versus unsuccessful, with a non-inferiority margin of –10%; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) measured by the EQ-5D-3L; healthcare and societal costs were based on medical records and the institute for Medical Technology Assessment questionnaires.

For the PGI-I, the mean difference between pessary therapy and surgery was –0.05 (95% CI –0.14; 0.03) and –0.03 (95% CI –0.07; 0.002) for QALYs. In total, 54.1% women randomised to pessary therapy crossed over to surgery, and 3.6% underwent recurrent surgery. Healthcare and societal costs were significantly lower in the pessary therapy (mean difference=–1807, 95% CI –2172; –1446 and mean difference=–1850, 95% CI –2349; –1341, respectively). The probability that pessary therapy is cost-effective compared with surgery was 1 at willingness-to-pay thresholds between 0 and 20 000/QALY gained from both perspectives.

Non-inferiority of pessary therapy regarding the PGI-I could not be shown and no statistically significant differences in QALYs between interventions were found. Due to significantly lower costs, pessary therapy is likely to be cost-effective compared with surgery as an initial treatment option for women with symptomatic POP treated in secondary care.

NTR4883.