Micro-costing analysis from Italian Guidelines for the management of sporadic primary hyperparathyroidism

Authors

  • Ilaria Valentini High School of Economy and Management of Health Systems, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome - Italy and Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5940-7495
  • Michele Basile High School of Economy and Management of Health Systems, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1098-2648
  • Fabio Vescini Endocrinology Unit, Azienda Sanitaria-Universitaria Friuli Centrale, P.O. Santa Maria della Misericordia, Udine - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1892-9785
  • Giorgio Borretta Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Ospedale Santa Croce and Carle Hospital, Cuneo - Italy
  • Iacopo Chiodini Endocrinology Department, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano di Niguarda, Milan - Italy and Department of Biotechnology and Translational Medicine, University of Milan, Milan - Italy
  • Marco Boniardi Endocrine Surgery Unit, General Oncologic and Mini-invasive Surgery Department, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano di Niguarda, Milan - Italy
  • Marina Carotti Department of Radiology, AOU delle Marche, Ancona, - Italy
  • Elena Castellano Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Ospedale Santa Croce and Carle Hospital, Cuneo - Italy
  • Cristiana Cipriani Department of Clinical, Internal, Anesthesiological and Cardiovascular Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0141-1202
  • Cristina Eller-Vainicher Endocrinology, Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6805-5804
  • Sandro Giannini Clinica Medica 1, Department of Medicine, University of Padova, Padova - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0796-9749
  • Maurizio Iacobone Endocrine Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padova - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6057-4642
  • Antonio Stefano Salcuni Endocrinology Unit, Azienda Sanitaria-Universitaria Friuli Centrale, P.O. Santa Maria della Misericordia, Udine - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0131-8681
  • Federica Saponaro Department of Surgical, Medical, and Molecular Pathology and Critical Care Medicine, University Pisa, Pisa - Italy
  • Stefano Spiezia Department of Endocrine and Ultrasound- Guided Surgery, Ospedale del Mare, Naples - Italy
  • Annibale Versari Nuclear Medicine, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale–IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia - Italy
  • Guido Zavatta Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes Prevention and Care, IRCCS AOU di Bologna, Bologna - Italy and Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Bologna - Italy
  • Zuzana Mitrova Department of Epidemiology, Lazio Region Health Service, ASL Roma 1, Rome - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7644-7939
  • Rosella Saulle Department of Epidemiology, Lazio Region Health Service, ASL Roma 1, Rome - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4358-0415
  • Alexia Giovanazzi Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari della Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Trento - Italy
  • Roberto Novizio Endocrinology Unit, Department of Translational Medicine and Surgery, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5641-6847
  • Agostino Paoletta Endocrinology,, ULSS6 Euganea, Padova - Italy
  • Enrico Papini Endocrinology, Ospedale Regina Apostolorum, Lifenet Health Group, Albano Laziale (RM) - Italy
  • Agnese Persichetti Ministry of Interior - Department of Firefighters, Public Rescue and Civil Defense, Rome and Department of Human Sciences and Promotion of the Quality of Life, San Raffaele Roma Open University, Rome - Italy
  • Irene Samperi Endocrinology, ASL Novara, Novara - Italy
  • Alessandro Scoppola UOSD Endocrinology, ASL Roma 1, Rome - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6490-0978
  • Pietro Giorgio Calò SIUEC Past President, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Cagliari, Cagliari - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9637-1145
  • Filomena Cetani Endocrine Unit 2, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa - Italy
  • Luisella Cianferotti Department of Experimental, Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence; Bone Metabolic Diseases Unit, AOU Careggi, Florence - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7424-6212
  • Sabrina Corbetta Bone Metabolism and Diabetes, IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Milan - Italy and Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, Milan - Italy
  • Maria Luisa De Rimini AIMN President, Nuclear Medicine Unit, AORN Ospedali dei Colli, Naples - Italy
  • Alberto Falchetti Endocrinology Department, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano di Niguarda, Milan - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6739-4417
  • Stefano Laureti General Practitioner, USL Umbria 1, Magione (Perugia) - Italy
  • Bruno Madeo Unit of Endocrinology, Department of Medical Specialties, Ospedale Civile di Baggiovara, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Modena, Modena - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2881-982X
  • Claudio Marcocci Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa - Italy
  • Sandro Mazzaferro Nephrology Unit at Policlinico Umberto I Hospital and Department of Translation and Precision Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome - Italy
  • Vittorio Miele Department of Emergency Radiology, Careggi University Hospital, Florence - Italy
  • Salvatore Minisola Department of Clinical, Internal, Anesthesiologic and Cardiovascular Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6525-0439
  • Andrea Palermo Unit of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Campus Bio-Medico University, Rome - Italy and Unit of Metabolic Bone and Thyroid Disorders, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1143-4926
  • Jessica Pepe Department of Clinical, Internal, Anesthesiological and Cardiovascular Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome - Italy
  • Alfredo Scillitani Unit of Endocrinology, Fondazione IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo (FG) - Italy
  • Franco Grimaldi Italian Association of Clinical Endocrinologists past President, Udine - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7527-8010
  • Renato Cozzi Endocrinology Department, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano di Niguarda, Milan - Italy and Italian Association of Clinical Endocrinologists past President, Milan - Italy
  • Roberto Attanasio Italian Association of Clinical Endocrinologists Scientific Committee, Milan - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1417-287X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33393/grhta.2025.3531

Keywords:

Guidelines, Micro-Costing Analysis, Parathyroidectomy, Primary hyperparathyroidism

Abstract

Introduction: Primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) is a common endocrine disorder, primarily caused by single
adenomas or multiglandular disease. This study evaluates the economic impact of different PHPT treatment approaches from both the Italian National Health Service and societal perspectives.
Methods: A micro-costing approach was used to estimate the costs of surgical and non-surgical treatments. Data
were gathered through a survey among panel members responsible for the Italian PHPT treatment guidelines,
ensuring alignment with national clinical practice. The survey examined various cost components, including diagnostic tests, pre-hospitalization assessments, surgery duration, drug use, healthcare professionals involved,
disposable materials, and follow-up care requirements.
Results: The total cost for PHPT diagnosis and comorbidity assessment is € 887.96. Parathyroidectomy (PTX)
costs € 4,588.00. Non-surgical alternatives, including pharmacological treatment (€ 953.34 annually) and active
surveillance (€ 197.42 annually), result in cumulative 30-year costs of € 28,590 and € 5,910, respectively. Since
PTX is typically performed at age 55, pharmacological treatment over 30 years incurs an additional € 22,876 per
patient compared to surgery.
Conclusions: Despite its higher upfront cost, PTX demonstrated long-term cost efficiency due to the relatively
low rates of follow-up complications and the absence of recurring annual costs associated with conservative
strategies.

Introduction

Primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) is the third most frequent endocrine disorder and the leading cause of hypercalcemia in outpatient settings (1). An adenoma causes PHPT in 85% of instances, with multiglandular disease being linked to the remainder cases (2). 90–95% of individuals have the primarily sporadic condition (1).

The disease is associated with an annual incidence of 20 cases per 100,000 people and a prevalence in the general population ranging between 0.1%-0.4% (3,4).

The inclusion of serum calcium determination in multichannel automated assays and the increasing diffusion of the screening for osteoporosis resulted in the frequent finding of mild and asymptomatic conditions (3,4).

Two primary clinical presentations of the disease are now recognized:

  • Symptomatic PHPT, associated with clinically overt complications involving bone and kidney.
  • Asymptomatic PHPT, diagnosed via routine blood tests without evident clinical symptoms. This category can be further divided into complicated and uncomplicated forms, depending on the presence or absence of subclinical target organ involvement.

Furthermore, the condition of normocalcemic PHPT was recently described but this clinical entity and its management are still matters of debate (5,6).

The diagnosis of PHPT is based on the presence of hypercalcemia alongside inappropriately elevated levels of parathyroid hormone (PTH) (7,8). This requires the exclusion of confounding factors such as pharmacological treatments (7) and familial hypocalciuric hypercalcemia (9).

After a conclusive biochemical diagnosis of PHPT, imaging procedures should be employed for the localization of the affected parathyroid gland(s). Ultrasound scan of the neck and parathyroid scintigraphy are the first-line imaging procedures (1013).

Parathyroidectomy (PTX) is the only definitive treatment for PHPT (14), offering a cure in 96% of uniglandular cases when performed in high-volume centers (>40 PTX/year) by experienced surgeons (15,16).

Surgical complication rate is low in high-volume centers (1-3%) (17). At present surgical interventions are planned based on pre-operative imaging findings and coupled with the use of intra-operative PTH assay (ioPTH).

While the complication rate is low (1–3%), surgical success is influenced by preoperative imaging and ioPTH, which confirms gland removal by demonstrating a rapid drop in PTH levels (18). Postoperatively, serum calcium and PTH levels are monitored to guide supplementation of calcium and calcitriol and assess surgical outcomes, with long-term relapse rates below 5% over 10 years (19).

Beyond surgical treatment, medical management options for PHPT with different efficacy and mechanisms of action include Cinacalcet, bisphosphonates, and denosumab. Cinacalcet effectively reduces serum calcium levels (20,21), whereas bisphosphonates and denosumab improve bone mineral density (BMD) without affecting calcium or PTH levels (16,22,23).

The benefits of successful PTX have been largely demonstrated at bone (16,24,25), and renal levels (26,27). On the contrary, disease progression is reported in the majority of PHPT patients who are followed-up without surgery (2831).

Vitamin D deficiency is a recognized risk factor for postoperative complications such as hungry bone syndrome and requires correction when identified (32,33).

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the economic implications of three different management strategies for PHPT: surgical, pharmacological, and observational. The analysis conducted from both the Italian National Health Service (NHS) and societal perspectives, seeks to estimate the annual economic burden of PHPT and provide actionable recommendations to optimize its management within the Italian healthcare system.

Methods

The economic evaluation was conducted using a micro-costing approach (3438) for the economic valorization of the alternatives considered, which allows for the identification of cost drivers and enables the estimation of the total cost of each intervention by quantifying individual resource items.

The developed micro-costing framework outlined below was based on standard methods of cost gathering and previous examples of micro-costing (3438). Micro-costing is a valuation method commonly used in health economics, focusing on evaluating individual services or specific interventions over a period. The primary aim of this approach is to achieve precise measurements of costs and benefits related to the provision of healthcare services (34). It accomplishes this by considering both fixed and variable costs associated with care, considering local prices and the specific institutional setup where the care is delivered. One of the key features of micro-costing is its effort to incorporate all possible costs related to the service, even those that might not be readily observable. For instance, it considers factors such as patient time spent, opportunity costs associated with family members’ time, and other unobserved costs (34). To account for these, micro-costing may use shadow prices or employ various interpolation methods. By employing the micro-costing method, researchers and policymakers can obtain a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the true costs and benefits of healthcare interventions, enabling informed decision-making and resource allocation in the healthcare sector (34). Moreover, micro-costing allows for the assessment of the potential organizational impact and the specific resources involved and allocated.

The micro-costing process involves the realization of the following phases. The first phases is the Resources’ identification, where the resources necessary for the provision of the therapies under analysis are identified, defining roles and timing of each phase as well as the segments into which the process can be divided, thus allowing the costs to be associated with each operation performed or unit of material used, and allowing the full cost of such sub-activities to be estimated.

The second step of micro-costing analysis is the Costs’ measurement, involving the identification of cost of each resources identified for the provision of the treatments under analysis. The analysis considered the NHS and societal perspectives. A partial assessment of the social impact of the treatment was included, specifically limited on productivity losses related to the absence of patients and their carers from work.

To determine the cost of these resources, various sources were consulted, including the Tariff of Specialist Outpatient Service (39), AIFA transparency lists (40), and the scientific literature.

For examinations and follow-up visits, the tariffs specified by the Italian Ministry of Health’s nomenclature for outpatient specialist care were used as a reference (see Table S1). Additionally, the ex-factory prices of the active ingredients used in the treatments were extracted from the AIFA transparency lists (see Table S2). Inpatient services’ costs were estimated through the results obtained in the survey using healthcare professionals’ hourly costs extrapolated from Agency for the Negotiating Representation of Public Administrations (ARAN) (41) (see Table S3).

Table S4 reports the acquisition cost of resources required for performing PTX.

In order to valorize the time dedicated by healthcare professionals to the provision of services under analysis and the productivity loss of patients/caregivers, reference was made to the ARAN (41) and the Job Pricing: All About Rewards – Salary Outlook 2019 Report (42) (See Table S5).

The last step is the Results’ valorization, where the monetary values are attributed to the corresponding cost drivers, allowing the full value of each action carried out and of the supply process to be determined.

Results are expressed in terms of yearly total cost for each management strategy, with a focus on the resource differential between pharmacological and surgical alternatives.

Deterministic analyses were performed to explore the level of uncertainty in the parameters extracted from the survey.

The one-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA) varied each parameter individually between the upper and lower bounds of confidence intervals within pre-specified probabilistic distributions assigned to each parameter. Where the standard error was unavailable to calculate upper and lower confidence intervals, this was assumed to be ±20% of the mean value. A tornado diagram was developed to illustrate the level of uncertainty considering the full cost of the framework at start and of the three strategies based on the upper and lower bounds.

Survey

The analysis used estimates derived from the clinicians’ current experience as data sources.

A survey was conducted among the members of the guidelines (GL) panel to reconstruct a scenario consistent with the Italian clinical practice for the treatment of PHPT. The panel, consisting of 10 clinicians from different Italian regions, was composed following the principles of multiprofessionalism and multidisciplinarity The survey was conducted using structured forms, which were completed independently by each panel member. The purpose of this survey was to investigate the parameters involved in the implementation of the therapeutic strategies being assessed.

PTX and alternative pharmacologic treatments – cinacalcet, bisphosphonates, denosumab, and thiazides – were evaluated. As to PTX, the survey investigated the number and type of diagnostic tests and visits provided in the pre-hospitalization phase, the total duration of the operation, the drugs and their average doses used during the operation, the number and types of professionals involved as well as the type and quantity of the employed disposable materials. For each pharmacological approach, the survey investigated the following aspects: the average dosage, the number and type of diagnostic tests and visits provided for patients’ initial assessment, the number and type of yearly diagnostic tests and visits for patients’ follow-up. The analysis also investigated the rates of recourse to all available alternatives in the clinical practice to estimate the average weighted cost per patient irrespective of the chosen treatment strategy. As the analysis considered the society perspective, the share of patients who were actively employed and the percentage of those who required a caregiver during and after the procedure was also investigated to obtain an estimate of the productivity losses sustained by patients and caregivers associated with the provision of the treatments under analysis.

These data were obtained through the survey conducted among the clinical panel, who provided estimates based on their clinical experience and patient population. A collective discussion and consensus meeting with the Guidelines (LG) panel was held during the presentation and elaboration of the survey results. The data were then consolidated quantitatively: for each parameter, the mean value and range were used in the cost calculations.

Results

The analysis revealed significant differences in the economic burden and resource consumption associated with the management of PHPT across the approaches investigated.

Diagnosis

This step includes the necessary procedures to establish an accurate diagnosis and evaluate associated conditions, ensuring a robust basis for selecting the most appropriate therapeutic approach. The main complications of PHPT that were considered in this evaluation are bone involvement (with osteoporosis, fractures and brown tumors) and renal involvement (with nephrolithiasis, nephrocalcinosis and chronic kidney disease). The total cost of PHPT diagnostic phase and evaluation of comorbidities/complications is € 887.96 (Table 1) regardless of the subsequent therapeutic strategy.

Procedure Cost (€)
Procedures for the diagnosis of PHPT € 561.15
Procedures for the evaluation of comorbidities and complications € 326.81
Framework at start full cost € 887.96
TABLE 1 -. Costs of Framework at start

Parathyroidectomy

The total cost of PTX amounts to € 4,639.63, including operation expenses, follow-up care, and indirect costs such as productivity losses for the patient and caregiver (Table 2).

Parathyroidectomy costs
  Procedure Cost (€)
Operation Pre-surgical treatments € 258.51
Procedures before hospitalization € 161.95
Drugs employed during surgery € 44.96
Disposables/devices € 206.63
Procedures during surgery € 45.59
Health professionals € 115.20
Operating room € 193.82
Hospital stay € 1329.62
Sub-total operation € 2356.28
  Cost (€) % of Cases Weighted Cost (€)
Follow-up Standard follow-up € 395.57 95.02% € 375.89
Follow-up with acute complications € 1,546.40 2.54% € 32.79
Follow-up with chronic complications € 414.29 2.43% € 10.07
Sub-total follow-up € 418.75
Indirect costs Patient € 858.21 100% € 858.21
Caregiver € 858.21 7.78% € 66.80
Sub-total indirect costs € 925.01
Parathyroidectomy full cost € 3700.04
Non-surgical strategies cost
Pharmacological
Procedure Cost (€)
Pharmacological therapy € 755.92
Monitoring the patient’s clinical condition € 197.42
Pharmacological therapy full cost € 953.34
Observational strategy
Procedure Cost (€)
Monitoring the patient’s clinical condition € 197.42
TABLE 2 -. Parathyroidectomy costs

In particular, operation costs account for the largest share, representing 63.27% (€ 2,356.28) of the total cost. These include pre-surgical treatments, procedures before hospitalization, drugs and disposables used during surgery, the operating room, and the hospital stay; Follow-up costs represent 11.31% (€ 418.75) of the total and include standard follow-up for the majority of patients (95.02%), as well as follow-up for those with acute (2.54%) or chronic complications (2.43%) during the first years post-surgery; indirect costs contribute 25.00% (€ 925.01) to the total, reflecting productivity losses for patients and caregivers during and after the procedure.

Pharmacological approaches

Regarding the resource consumption associated with the provision of non-surgical therapies, the analysis categorized the drivers related to these strategies into the following major cost classes: Pharmacological therapy and annual follow-up for monitoring the patient’s clinical condition.

Regarding the resource consumption associated with pharmacological therapies, Table S19 presents the survey results in terms of average, minimum, and maximum dosages, as well as the percentage of use for each active ingredient. The analysis reveals that the overall utilization rate of pharmacological alternatives is 196.17%, indicating that patients are often prescribed more than one pharmacological therapy simultaneously. Among the therapies, cholecalciferol is associated with the highest utilization rate (81.70%), while cinacalcet accounts for the highest expenditure (mean: € 391.93; range: € 92.31–€ 1,277.11).

The average annual pharmacological expenditure for these therapies, considering the utilization rates of each active ingredient, amounts to € 755.92 (Table 2).

The analysis of non-surgical therapies also examined the annual frequency of specialist visits and diagnostic tests required to monitor the clinical condition of patients with PHPT undergoing pharmacological therapy or only observational strategy. When considering the overall cost of therapeutic strategies as alternatives to PTX, the total reaches € 953.34 per year, encompassing both drugs and follow-ups (Table 2).

For patients following an observational strategy, which primarily involves monitoring the clinical condition without active treatment, the annual cost in the absence of disease complications is € 197.42.

Burden of hyperparathyroidism

Table 3 illustrates the economic burden of PHPT during the first year across three management strategies.

The baseline cost that is common to all approaches includes the procedures for the diagnosis of the disease and its complications and amounts to € 887.96. PTX emerges as the most expensive strategy during the first year, with a cost of € 3,700.04 for surgery, leading to a total first-year expense of € 4,588.00. In contrast, the pharmacological strategy incurs a lower first-year total of € 1,841.30, while the observational approach is the most economical at € 1,085.38.

  PTX Pharmacological Observational
Framework at start full cost € 887.96
PTX € 3,700.04
Pharmacological strategy € 953.34
Observational strategy € 197.42
Total € 4,588.00 € 1,841.30 € 1,085.38
TABLE 3 -. Burden of hyperparathyroidism during the first years for each strategy

The analysis also investigated the general recourse rate of the therapies under investigation (Table 4): PTX resulted the strategy associated to the highest recourse (76.11%), while pharmacologic treatments and active surveillance are employed less frequently with similar percentages of 11.44% and 12.44%, respectively.

Alternative treatments for PHPT %
Patients undergoing PTX 76.11%
Patients treated only with pharmacologic treatments 11.44%
Patients followed up with active surveillance 12.44%
TABLE 4 -. Distribution of patients among alternative treatments for PHPT

Considering the annual PHPT incidence of 20 cases per 100,000 individuals, corresponding to approximately 12,000 new annual cases in Italy (60 million population) (3,4) and weighting the total cost of treatments according to each recourse rate, the overall average cost of managing PHPT was estimated equal to € 56.4 million (see Table 5).

Strategy N Annual cost
PTX 9,133 € 52,185,962.00*
Active surveillance 1,373 € 1,486,107.70
Pharmacologic treatments 1,494 € 2,750,902.00
Total 12,000 € 56,422,971.70
TABLE 5 -. Annual burden of PHPT

A detailed summary of the parameters derived from the survey conducted among members of the GL panel is provided in the Supplementary Materials. Tables S1 to S5 report the input data of analysis.

The calculations outlined in the supplementary material cover all steps involved in extrapolating the total cost of the First diagnosis (Table S6 S7), Surgical Strategies (Table S8S18) and Non-Surgical Treatments (Table S19S20). These calculations include estimates for the number and type of diagnostic tests and visits, the duration of surgical operations, the resources used during surgery (e.g., drugs, doses, materials, and personnel), as well as the average drug dosages and follow-up requirements for pharmacological and observational approaches. Additionally, weighted costs were computed to reflect the rates of recourse to each therapeutic alternative in clinical practice and the Italian annual economic burden of PHPT.

Sensitivity Analysis

The OWSA results are shown in the tornado diagram (Figure 1) for each strategy.

FIGURE 1 -. Tornado diagrams.

Each strategy displays a distinct range of uncertainty: PTX exhibits the widest variability, particularly for hospital stay and postoperative recovery, suggesting a high degree of cost sensitivity to clinical and organizational parameters. The pharmacological strategy also shows moderate variability, especially linked to drug choice and treatment duration. In contrast, the observational and framework at start strategies are characterized by narrow uncertainty intervals, indicating more stable and predictable costs.

Discussion

These findings highlight the significant economic burden of PHPT management based on the approaches considered in the analysis. This study provides an analysis of the economic implications associated with various management strategies for PHPT in Italy. By integrating clinical and economic data, the results offer valuable insights into the distribution of patients among therapeutic approaches, the cost drivers of treatment, and the overall economic burden of PHPT management.

PTX emerged as the dominant therapeutic strategy, utilized in 76.11% of cases. This reflects the role of PTX as the gold standard for PHPT treatment, offering a definitive cure in most cases, despite its higher upfront cost (€ 4,588.04 per case).

The annual cost of conservative strategies was estimated at € 197 for active surveillance and € 953 for pharmacologic treatments. However, these annual costs must be multiplied by the follow-up period, which often spans decades. Assuming that surgery is performed at an average age of 55, a conservative estimate of the remaining time horizon is 30 years. (43) Based on an annual cost of €10 for managing chronic complications, the total cost over this period would amount to approximately €300. Combined with the initial cost of PTX (€ 5,714), the total cost for PTX and the management of complications would be approximately € 6,004.

In contrast, the cost of pharmacologic treatments over 30 years is € 28,590, while the cost of active surveillance is significantly lower (€ 5,910). These findings highlight that while pharmacologic treatments are less invasive, their cumulative cost over time far exceeds that of PTX. Importantly, surgical intervention is primarily recommended for patients with complications, making the comparison between PTX and pharmacologic strategies particularly relevant.

The overall economic burden of PHPT management in Italy amounts to € 56,422,971 annually, with surgical interventions accounting for the majority (€ 52,651,745). Although pharmacologic treatments and active surveillance contribute smaller shares, their cumulative costs become significant when considered over the long term.

The increased cost per patient of pharmacologic treatments over 30 years compared to surgical intervention is € 22,876 (delta between pharmacologic treatments cost (€ 28,590) and surgical intervention (€ 5,714), emphasizing the long-term economic efficiency of PTX for eligible patients with complications.

From an efficiency and resource optimization perspective, PTX remains the most competitive strategy for managing PHPT in patients with symptomatic or complicated disease. The significant cost difference between PTX and pharmacologic treatments reinforces the recommendation of surgical intervention (€ 5,714 per person) as the preferred approach for eligible patients (with symptomatic or complicated disease). Active surveillance, while cost-effective (€ 5,910 over 30 years), is limited to patients with uncomplicated or asymptomatic PHPT, further emphasizing the need for tailored treatment approaches.

In this context, the use of a micro-costing approach proved particularly valuable not only in estimating direct treatment costs, but also in supporting the assessment of the potential organizational impact. It allowed for a more detailed understanding of the specific resources involved, such as personnel time, materials, and facility use, thus informing more effective planning and resource allocation strategies.

In Italy, the reimbursement for the medical activities performed in public health structures is established by regulatory authorities. For PTX (ICD9-CM 06.81 and 06.89) a maximum reimbursement of € 3,482.48 is recognized for ordinary hospitalization, but the costs related to long-term follow-up are not considered. By using the costs applied by the Italian NHS and considering the expected additional costs in the first year for the complementary services, it was possible to establish the total expenditure. The € 2,356 amount calculated for the net cost of the operation should be detracted from the € 4,639,62 total cost for the first year of management. Then, the € 3,482 sum of the NHS reimbursement should be added, bringing the total expense induced by the surgical strategy to € 5,714.

Limitations to a reliable calculation of cost estimates include several factors that introduce variability and uncertainty into the analysis. First, price fluctuations of surgical devices and disposables can significantly affect the overall costs of surgical interventions. Additionally, the risk and associated costs of surgical complications may be higher in real-world settings than reported in studies conducted by specialized centers following good clinical practice guidelines.

Personnel costs for surgical interventions are another area of potential underestimation, as they do not fully account for non-surgical times, including dressing and undressing, patient information and consent procedures, operating room cleaning, and patient monitoring during anesthesia weaning. These additional components may help explain why the DRG tariff is relatively higher compared with the cost for the procedure estimated in this study. Moreover, the analysis assumes that patients following surveillance or pharmacological strategies will adhere to these approaches throughout their lifetime, but drop-out rates could alter long-term costs.

Future price fluctuations of drugs introduce further uncertainty, potentially affecting the cost-effectiveness of pharmacological strategies. The analysis also does not account for the costs or potential savings associated with complications that may be prevented by surgical intervention, such as fractures or nephrolithiasis, with their burden of complications and disability, which could significantly impact the overall economic evaluation.

Finally, indirect costs for patients and caregivers were only considered for surgical strategies, though similar indirect costs are likely associated with other management strategies due to time spent on visits, follow-ups, and hospitalizations for potential complications. Future research should focus on longitudinal studies to validate these findings and explore the cost-effectiveness of emerging therapeutic options, such as new calcimimetics or advanced surgical techniques.

Conclusion

This study highlights the economic and clinical value of PTX as the gold standard for managing PHPT in Italy. While pharmacologic treatments and active surveillance have specific roles in selected patient populations, their cumulative costs over the long term underscore that these strategies do not optimize tresource use relative to surgery for eligible patients. These findings provide actionable insights for policymakers and healthcare providers to optimize resource allocation and improve patient outcomes in PHPT management.

Other information

This article includes supplementary material

Corresponding author:

Ilaria Valentini

email: ilaria.valentini@unicatt.it

Disclosures

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no potential conflict of interest to be disclosed.

Financial support: The present work was developed with no external financial support.

Data Availability Statement: Data sharing not applicable: All data generated or analyzed in this study are included in this published article and available as supplementary material.

References

  1. Madkhali T, Alhefdhi A, Chen H, Elfenbein D. Primary hyperparathyroidism. Ulus Cerrahi Derg. 2016;32(1):58-66. https://doi.org/10.5152/UCD.2015.3032 PMID:26985167 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5152/UCD.2015.3032
  2. Barczyński M, Bränström R, Dionigi G, Mihai R. Sporadic multiple parathyroid gland disease--a consensus report of the European Society of Endocrine Surgeons (ESES). Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2015;400(8):887-905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-015-1348-1 PMID:26542689 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-015-1348-1
  3. Minisola S, Arnold A, Belaya Z, et al. Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Genetics of Primary Hyperparathyroidism. J Bone Miner Res. 2022;37(11):2315-2329. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.4665 PMID:36245271 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.4665
  4. Walker MD, Silverberg SJ. Primary hyperparathyroidism. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2018;14(2):115-125. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrendo.2017.104 PMID:28885621 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrendo.2017.104
  5. Bollerslev J, Rejnmark L, Zahn A, et al; 2021 PARAT Working Group. European Expert Consensus on Practical Management of Specific Aspects of Parathyroid Disorders in Adults and in Pregnancy: Recommendations of the ESE Educational Program of Parathyroid Disorders. Eur J Endocrinol. 2022;186(2):R33-R63. https://doi.org/10.1530/EJE-21-1044 PMID:34863037 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1530/EJE-21-1044
  6. Zavatta G, Clarke BL. Normocalcemic Primary Hyperparathyroidism: Need for a Standardized Clinical Approach. Endocrinol Metab (Seoul). 2021;36(3):525-535. https://doi.org/10.3803/EnM.2021.1061 PMID:34107603 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3803/EnM.2021.1061
  7. Bilezikian JP, Khan AA, Silverberg SJ, et al; International Workshop on Primary Hyperparathyroidism. Evaluation and Management of Primary Hyperparathyroidism: Summary Statement and Guidelines from the Fifth International Workshop. J Bone Miner Res. 2022;37(11):2293-2314. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.4677 PMID:36245251 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.4677
  8. Marcocci C, Brandi ML, Scillitani A, et al. Italian Society of Endocrinology Consensus Statement: definition, evaluation and management of patients with mild primary hyperparathyroidism. J Endocrinol Invest. 2015;38(5):577-593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40618-015-0261-3 PMID:25820553 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40618-015-0261-3
  9. Alberto F. Genetics of parathyroids disorders: overview. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018;32(6):781-790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beem.2018.09.011 PMID:30665546 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beem.2018.09.011
  10. Cacciatore, G., Mastronardi, M., Paiano, L. et al. How has the diagnostic approach to parathyroid localization techniques evolved in the past decade? Insights from a single-center experience. Updates Surg 77, 389–399 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-025-02090-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-025-02090-8
  11. Ha TK, Kim DW, Jung SJ. Ultrasound detection of normal parathyroid glands: a preliminary study. Radiol Med. 2017;122(11):866-870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-017-0792-0 PMID:28712071 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-017-0792-0
  12. Lee HJ. Diagnosis and treatment of congenital hypothyroidism. J Korean Med Assoc. 2023;66(3):191-197. https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2023.66.3.191 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2023.66.3.191
  13. Morris MA, Saboury B, Ahlman M, et al. Parathyroid Imaging: Past, Present, and Future. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;12:760419. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.760419 PMID:35283807 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.760419
  14. Perrier N, Lang BH, Farias LCB, et al. Surgical Aspects of Primary Hyperparathyroidism. J Bone Miner Res. 2022;37(11):2373-2390. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.4689 PMID:36054175 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.4689
  15. Rajan S, Gracie D, Aspinall S. Does Surgeon Volume Impact Morbidity Following Parathyroidectomy? A Study of 16,140 Parathyroidectomies from the UK Registry of Endocrine and Thyroid Surgery (UKRETS) Database. World J Surg. 2023;47(5):1221-1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-022-06863-9 PMID:36593341 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-022-06863-9
  16. Ye Z, Silverberg SJ, Sreekanta A, et al. The Efficacy and Safety of Medical and Surgical Therapy in Patients With Primary Hyperparathyroidism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Bone Miner Res. 2022;37(11):2351-2372. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.4685 PMID:36053960 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.4685
  17. Rosato L, Raffaelli M, Bellantone R, et al. Diagnostic, therapeutic and healthcare management protocols in parathyroid surgery: II Consensus Conference of the Italian Association of Endocrine Surgery Units (U.E.C. CLUB). J Endocrinol Invest. 2014 Feb;37(2):149-65. doi: 10.1007/s40618-013-0022-0. PMID: 24497214.
  18. Rosato L, Raffaelli M, Bellantone R, et al. Diagnostic, therapeutic and healthcare management protocols in parathyroid surgery: II Consensus Conference of the Italian Association of Endocrine Surgery Units (U.E.C. CLUB). J Endocrinol Invest. 2014;37(2):149-165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40618-013-0022-0 PMID:24497214 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40618-013-0022-0
  19. Hedbäck G, Odén A. Recurrence of hyperparathyroidism; a long-term follow-up after surgery for primary hyperparathyroidism. Eur J Endocrinol. 2003;148(4):413-421. https://doi.org/10.1530/eje.0.1480413 PMID:12656661 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1530/eje.0.1480413
  20. Hofer AM, Brown EM. Extracellular calcium sensing and signalling. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2003;4(7):530-538. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm1154 PMID:12838336 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm1154
  21. Ng CH, Chin YH, Tan MHQ, et al. Cinacalcet and primary hyperparathyroidism: systematic review and meta regression. Endocr Connect. 2020;9(7):724-735. https://doi.org/10.1530/EC-20-0221 PMID:32621588 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1530/EC-20-0221
  22. Leere JS, Karmisholt J, Robaczyk M, et al. Denosumab and cinacalcet for primary hyperparathyroidism (DENOCINA): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020;8(5):407-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30063-2 PMID:32333877 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30063-2
  23. Rossini M, Gatti D, Isaia G, Sartori L, Braga V, Adami S. Effects of oral alendronate in elderly patients with osteoporosis and mild primary hyperparathyroidism. J Bone Miner Res. 2001;16(1):113-119. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.2001.16.1.113 PMID:11149474 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.2001.16.1.113
  24. Joseph M, Simon S, Elangovan I, et al. Is a single regimen of two injections of recombinant human thyroid stimulating hormone (rhTSH) adequate for both diagnosis and therapy with I-131? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(S2):198-311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1557-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1557-3
  25. Miguel GA, Carranza FH, Rodríguez JCR, et al. Trabecular Bone Score, Bone Mineral Density and Bone Markers in Patients with Primary Hyperparathyroidism 2 Years After Parathyroidectomy. Horm Metab Res. 2019;51(3):186-190. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0850-8679 PMID:30861565 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0850-8679
  26. Tassone F, Guarnieri A, Castellano E, Baffoni C, Attanasio R, Borretta G. Parathyroidectomy Halts the Deterioration of Renal Function in Primary Hyperparathyroidism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(8):3069-3073. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2015-2132 PMID:26079781 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2015-2132
  27. Matzen J, Bislev LS, Sikjær T, et al. The effect of parathyroidectomy compared to non-surgical surveillance on kidney function in primary hyperparathyroidism: a nationwide historic cohort study. BMC Endocr Disord. 2022;22(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-021-00918-z PMID:34991581 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-021-00918-z
  28. Rubin MR, Bilezikian JP, McMahon DJ, et al. The natural history of primary hyperparathyroidism with or without parathyroid surgery after 15 years. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93(9):3462-3470. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2007-1215 PMID:18544625 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2007-1215
  29. Seib CD, Meng T, Suh I, et al. Risk of Fracture Among Older Adults With Primary Hyperparathyroidism Receiving Parathyroidectomy vs Nonoperative Management. JAMA Intern Med. 2022;182(1):10-18. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.6437 PMID:34842909 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.6437
  30. Vestergaard P, Mollerup CL, Frøkjaer VG, Christiansen P, Blichert-Toft M, Mosekilde L. Cohort study of risk of fracture before and after surgery for primary hyperparathyroidism. BMJ. 2000;321(7261):598-602. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7261.598 PMID:10977834 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7261.598
  31. Yu N, Donnan PT, Leese GP. A record linkage study of outcomes in patients with mild primary hyperparathyroidism: the Parathyroid Epidemiology and Audit Research Study (PEARS). Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2011;75(2):169-176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2265.2010.03958.x PMID:21158894 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2265.2010.03958.x
  32. Clements MR, Davies M, Fraser DR, Lumb GA, Mawer EB, Adams PH. Metabolic inactivation of vitamin D is enhanced in primary hyperparathyroidism. Clin Sci (Lond). 1987;73(6):659-664. https://doi.org/10.1042/cs0730659 PMID:3690980 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1042/cs0730659
  33. Shah VN, Shah CS, Bhadada SK, Rao DS. Effect of 25 (OH) D replacements in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) and coexistent vitamin D deficiency on serum 25(OH) D, calcium and PTH levels: a meta-analysis and review of literature. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2014;80(6):797-803. https://doi.org/10.1111/cen.12398 PMID:24382124 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cen.12398
  34. Drummond MF, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 4th ed. Oxford University Press; 2015.
  35. Edwards RT, Céilleachair A, Bywater T, Hughes DA, Hutchings J. Parenting programme for parents of children at risk of developing conduct disorder: cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ. 2007;334(7595):682. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39126.699421.55 PMID:17350965 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39126.699421.55
  36. Griffith GL, Edwards RT, Gray J, et al. Estimating the survival benefits gained from providing national cancer genetic services to women with a family history of breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2004;90(10):1912-1919. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601794 PMID:15138471 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601794
  37. Morris S, Devlin N, Parkin D. Economic Analysis in Health Care. In: 2007. Online https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Economic-Analysis-in-Health-Care-Morris-Devlin/732aa2fe4d7e81dc882320445565ee632451a11a (Accessed March 2025)
  38. Perazzo H, Jorge MJ, Silva JC, et al. Micro-costing analysis of guideline-based treatment by direct-acting agents: the real-life case of hepatitis C management in Brazil. BMC Gastroenterol. 2017;17(1):119. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-017-0676-8 PMID:29169329 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-017-0676-8
  39. Ministero della Salute. Tariffario Delle Prestazioni Di Assistenza Ambulatoriale.; 2017. Online https://www.trovanorme.salute.gov.it/norme/renderPdf.spring?seriegu=SG&datagu=18/03/2017&redaz=17A02015&artp=4&art=1&subart=1&subart1=10&vers=1&prog=001 (Accessed March 2025)
  40. Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA). Elenco Dei Farmaci Di Fascia A e H per Principio Attivo.; 2024. Online https://www.aifa.gov.it/liste-farmaci-a-h (Accessed March 2025)
  41. ARAN. Retribuzioni medie PA per macrovoce (2021). 2022. Online https://www.aranagenzia.it/attachments/article/5152/Retribuzioni%20medie%20PA%20per%20macrovoce_2021.pdf (Accessed March 2025)
  42. Pricing J. All About Rewards – Salary Outlook. L’analisi Del Mercato Retributivo Italiano – Dati Aggiornati al Secondo Semestre 2018.; 2019. Online https://www.jobpricing.it/blog/project/salary-outlook-2019-prima-edizione/ (Accessed March 2025)
  43. Istituto Italiano di Statistica (Istat). Tabelle di Mortalità italia 2023. Online https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjDyr2144r7AhW3X_EDHUhnAfUQFnoECBQQAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdati.istat.it%2FIndex.aspx%3FDataSetCode%3DDCIS_MORTALITA1&usg=AOvVaw1Ul_RJJCCHwMtK8aOpuH1b (Accessed March 2025) https://demo.istat.it/app/?i=TVM

Most read articles by the same author(s)