Literature DB >> 24079411

Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic surveillance of non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus.

Louisa G Gordon1, George C Mayne2, Nicholas G Hirst3, Timothy Bright2, David C Whiteman4, David I Watson2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic surveillance for non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE) is contentious and its cost effectiveness unclear.
OBJECTIVE: To perform an economic analysis of endoscopic surveillance strategies.
DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis by using a simulation Markov model to synthesize evidence from large epidemiologic studies and clinical data for surveillance, based on international guidelines, applied in a coordinator-managed surveillance program.
SETTING: Tertiary care hospital, South Australia. PATIENTS: A total of 2040 patient-years of follow-up. INTERVENTION: (1) No surveillance, (2) 2-yearly endoscopic surveillance of patients with non-dysplastic BE and 6-monthly surveillance of patients with low-grade dysplasia, (3) a hypothetical strategy of biomarker-modified surveillance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: U.S. cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ratios.
RESULTS: Compared with no surveillance, surveillance produced an estimated incremental cost per QALY ratio of $60,858. This was reduced to $38,307 when surveillance practice was modified by a hypothetical biomarker-based strategy. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the likelihood that surveillance alone was cost-effective compared with no surveillance was 16.0% and 60.6% if a hypothetical biomarker-based strategy was added to surveillance, at an acceptability threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. LIMITATIONS: Treatment options for BE that overlap those for symptomatic GERD were omitted.
CONCLUSION: By using best available estimates of the malignant potential of BE, endoscopic surveillance of patients with non-dysplastic BE is unlikely to be cost-effective for the majority of patients and depends heavily on progression rates between dysplasia grades. However, strategies that modify surveillance according to cancer risk might be cost-effective, provided that high-risk individuals can be identified and prioritized for surveillance.
Copyright © 2014 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BE; Barrett's esophagus; HGD; IM; LGD; PCR; QALY; US dollars; USD; high-grade dysplasia; intestinal metaplasia; low-grade dysplasia; polymerase chain reaction; quality-adjusted life years

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24079411     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.07.046

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  34 in total

1.  Circulating Serum Exosomal miRNAs As Potential Biomarkers for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Karen Chiam; Tingting Wang; David I Watson; George C Mayne; Tanya S Irvine; Tim Bright; Lorelle Smith; Imogen A White; Joanne M Bowen; Dorothy Keefe; Sarah K Thompson; Michael E Jones; Damian J Hussey
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2015-05-06       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 2.  Barrett's esophagus: diagnosis and management.

Authors:  Swathi Eluri; Nicholas J Shaheen
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2017-01-18       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 3.  Screening and Surveillance for Barrett's Esophagus: Is It Cost-Effective?

Authors:  John M Inadomi; Nina Saxena
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 4.  Esophageal cancer: Risk factors, screening and endoscopic treatment in Western and Eastern countries.

Authors:  María José Domper Arnal; Ángel Ferrández Arenas; Ángel Lanas Arbeloa
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Cost-effectiveness of chemoprevention with proton pump inhibitors in Barrett's esophagus.

Authors:  Reem Z Sharaiha; Daniel E Freedberg; Julian A Abrams; Y Claire Wang
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2014-05-03       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 6.  Systematic Analysis and Critical Appraisal of the Quality of the Scientific Evidence and Conflicts of Interest in Practice Guidelines (2005-2013) for Barrett's Esophagus.

Authors:  Joseph D Feuerstein; Natalia E Castillo; Mona Akbari; Edward Belkin; Jeffrey J Lewandowski; Christine M Hurley; Samuel Lloyd; Daniel A Leffler; Adam S Cheifetz
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 3.199

7.  Toward More Efficient Surveillance of Barrett's Esophagus: Identification and Exclusion of Patients at Low Risk of Cancer.

Authors:  Mats Lindblad; Tim Bright; Ann Schloithe; George C Mayne; Gang Chen; Jeff Bull; Peter A Bampton; Robert J L Fraser; Piers A Gatenby; Louisa G Gordon; David I Watson
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 3.352

8.  Derivation of genetic biomarkers for cancer risk stratification in Barrett's oesophagus: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Margriet R Timmer; Pierre Martinez; Chiu T Lau; Wytske M Westra; Silvia Calpe; Agnieszka M Rygiel; Wilda D Rosmolen; Sybren L Meijer; Fiebo J W Ten Kate; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Rosalie C Mallant-Hent; Anton H J Naber; Arnoud H A M van Oijen; Lubbertus C Baak; Pieter Scholten; Clarisse J M Böhmer; Paul Fockens; Carlo C Maley; Trevor A Graham; Jacques J G H M Bergman; Kausilia K Krishnadath
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 9.  Endoscopic surveillance or ablation for Barrett's esophagus?

Authors:  John M Inadomi; Nina Saxena
Journal:  Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2018-12-06

10.  Somatic DNA copy number alterations in non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus.

Authors:  Zachary M Callahan; Wennuan Liu; Jun Hou; S Lilly Zheng; Jamaal Rehman; H Mason Hedberg; Craig S Brown; Bailey Su; Mikhail Attaar; Kristine Kuchta; MaryAnn Regner; JoAnn Carbray; Jianfeng Xu; Michael Ujiki
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-08-04       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.