Literature DB >> 25133641

The appropriateness of more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended in Medicare beneficiaries: a modeling study.

Frank van Hees1, Ann G Zauber2, Carrie N Klabunde3, S Luuk Goede1, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar1, Marjolein van Ballegooijen1.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Many Medicare beneficiaries undergo more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended. Whether this is favorable for beneficiaries and efficient from a societal perspective is uncertain.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended is favorable for Medicare beneficiaries (ie, whether it results in a net health benefit) and whether it is efficient from a societal perspective (ie, whether the net health benefit justifies the additional resources required). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Microsimulation modeling study of 65-year-old Medicare beneficiaries at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and with an average life expectancy who underwent a screening colonoscopy at 55 years with negative results.
INTERVENTIONS: Colonoscopy screening as recommended by guidelines (ie, at 65 and 75 years) vs scenarios with a shorter screening interval (5 or 3 instead of 10 years) or in which screening was continued to 85 or 95 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained (measure of net health benefit); additional colonoscopies required per additional QALY gained and additional costs per additional QALY gained (measures of efficiency).
RESULTS: Screening previously screened Medicare beneficiaries more intensively than recommended resulted in only small increases in CRC deaths prevented and life-years gained. In comparison, the increases in colonoscopies performed and colonoscopy-related complications experienced were large. As a result, all scenarios of more intensive screening than recommended resulted in a loss of QALYs, rather than a gain (ie, a net harm). The only exception was shortening the screening interval from 10 to 5 years, which resulted in 0.7 QALYs gained per 1000 beneficiaries. However, this scenario was inefficient because it required no less than 909 additional colonoscopies and an additional $711 000 per additional QALY gained. Results in previously unscreened beneficiaries were slightly less unfavorable, but conclusions were identical. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Screening Medicare beneficiaries more intensively than recommended is not only inefficient from a societal perspective; often it is also unfavorable for those being screened. This study provides evidence and a clear rationale for clinicians and policy makers to actively discourage this practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25133641      PMCID: PMC4416697          DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3889

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  43 in total

Review 1.  Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard.

Authors:  R A Hirth; M E Chernew; E Miller; A M Fendrick; W G Weissert
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2000 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Polyps of the colon in Barcelona, Spain. An autopsy study.

Authors:  J A Bombi
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1988-04-01       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Prevalence of polyps in an autopsy series from areas with varying incidence of large-bowel cancer.

Authors:  J C Clark; Y Collan; T J Eide; J Estève; S Ewen; N M Gibbs; O M Jensen; E Koskela; R MacLennan; J G Simpson
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  1985-08-15       Impact factor: 7.396

4.  Polyps and cancer of the large bowel: a necropsy study in Liverpool.

Authors:  A R Williams; B A Balasooriya; D W Day
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1982-10       Impact factor: 23.059

5.  Adenomatous lesions of the large bowel: an autopsy survey.

Authors:  R R Rickert; O Auerbach; L Garfinkel; E C Hammond; J M Frasca
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1979-05       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Predictors of presence, multiplicity, size and dysplasia of colorectal adenomas. A necropsy study in New Zealand.

Authors:  J R Jass; P J Young; E M Robinson
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 23.059

7.  The prevalence of polyps of the large intestine in Oslo: an autopsy study.

Authors:  M H Vatn; H Stalsberg
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1982-02-15       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Risk of perforation after colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy: a population-based study.

Authors:  Nicolle M Gatto; Harold Frucht; Vijaya Sundararajan; Judith S Jacobson; Victor R Grann; Alfred I Neugut
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-02-05       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Five-year colon surveillance after screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  David A Lieberman; David G Weiss; William V Harford; Dennis J Ahnen; Dawn Provenzale; Stephen J Sontag; Thomas G Schnell; Gregorio Chejfec; Donald R Campbell; Jayashri Kidao; John H Bond; Douglas B Nelson; George Triadafilopoulos; Francisco C Ramirez; Judith F Collins; Tiina K Johnston; Kenneth R McQuaid; Harinder Garewal; Richard E Sampliner; Romeo Esquivel; Douglas Robertson
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 22.682

10.  Polyps of the large intestine in Aarhus, Denmark. An autopsy study.

Authors:  L G Johannsen; O Momsen; N O Jacobsen
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 2.423

View more
  13 in total

Review 1.  Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Personalized Surveillance After Colorectal Adenomatous Polypectomy.

Authors:  Ethna McFerran; James F O'Mahony; Richard Fallis; Duncan McVicar; Ann G Zauber; Frank Kee
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 6.222

2.  Going against medical advice: PCPs' role in reducing colonoscopy overuse.

Authors:  Archana Radhakrishnan; Craig Evan Pollack
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Substantiated Modelling Instead of Flying Blind.

Authors:  Hermann Brenner
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2016-04-29       Impact factor: 5.594

4.  Five common errors to avoid in clinical practice: the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Endoscopists (AIGO) Choosing Wisely Campaign.

Authors:  Elisa Stasi; Andrea Michielan; Gaetano Cristian Morreale; Alessandro Tozzi; Ludovica Venezia; Francesco Bortoluzzi; Omero Triossi; Marco Soncini; Gioacchino Leandro; Giuseppe Milazzo; Andrea Anderloni
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2018-11-29       Impact factor: 3.397

5.  Estimation of Benefits, Burden, and Harms of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Amy B Knudsen; Ann G Zauber; Carolyn M Rutter; Steffie K Naber; V Paul Doria-Rose; Chester Pabiniak; Colden Johanson; Sara E Fischer; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Karen M Kuntz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Rates of Prevalent Colorectal Cancer Occurrence in Persons 75 Years of Age and Older: A Population-Based National Study.

Authors:  Vijit Chouhan; Emad Mansoor; Sravanthi Parasa; Gregory S Cooper
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2018-04-19       Impact factor: 3.199

7.  Personalizing colonoscopy screening for elderly individuals based on screening history, cancer risk, and comorbidity status could increase cost effectiveness.

Authors:  Frank van Hees; Sameer D Saini; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Sandeep Vijan; Reinier G S Meester; Harry J de Koning; Ann G Zauber; Marjolein van Ballegooijen
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2015-08-04       Impact factor: 22.682

8.  Cost Effectiveness of Age-Specific Screening Intervals for People With Family Histories of Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Steffie K Naber; Karen M Kuntz; Nora B Henrikson; Marc S Williams; Ned Calonge; Katrina A B Goddard; Doris T Zallen; Theodore G Ganiats; Elizabeth M Webber; A Cecile J W Janssens; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2017-09-28       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 9.  Colonoscopy in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Current Aspects.

Authors:  John K Triantafillidis; Constantine Vagianos; George Malgarinos
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-04-12

10.  Cost-effectiveness of a multitarget stool DNA test for colorectal cancer screening of Medicare beneficiaries.

Authors:  Steffie K Naber; Amy B Knudsen; Ann G Zauber; Carolyn M Rutter; Sara E Fischer; Chester J Pabiniak; Brittany Soto; Karen M Kuntz; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-09-04       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.