Miguel Areia1, Mário Dinis-Ribeiro, Francisco Rocha Gonçalves. 1. CINTESIS - Center for Research in Health Technologies and Information Systems, Faculty of Medicine, Porto University, Porto, Portugal; Gastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute - Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Progression of extensive gastric premalignant conditions to cancer might warrant surveillance programms. Recent guidelines suggest a 3-yearly endoscopic follow-up for these patients. Our aim was to determine the cost utility of endoscopic surveillance of patients with extensive gastric premalignant conditions such as extensive atrophy or intestinal metaplasia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-utility economic analysis was performed from a societal perspective in Portugal using a Markov model to compare two strategies: surveillance versus no surveillance. Clinical data were collected from a systematic review of the literature, costs from published national data, and community utilities derived from a population study by the EuroQol questionnaire in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Population started at age 50, for a time horizon of 25 years and an annual discount rate of 3% was used for cost and effectiveness. Primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of a 3-yearly endoscopic surveillance versus no surveillance for a base case scenario and in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Secondary outcomes were ICER of 5- and 10-yearly endoscopic surveillance versus no surveillance. RESULTS: Endoscopic surveillance every 3 years provided an ICER of € 18,336, below the adopted threshold of € 36,575 which corresponds to the proposed guideline limit of USD 50,000 and this strategy dominated surveillance every 5 or 10 years. Utilities for endoscopic treatment were relevant in deterministic analysis, while probabilistic analysis showed that in 78% of cases the model was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic surveillance every 3 years of patients with premalignant conditions is cost-effective.
BACKGROUND: Progression of extensive gastric premalignant conditions to cancer might warrant surveillance programms. Recent guidelines suggest a 3-yearly endoscopic follow-up for these patients. Our aim was to determine the cost utility of endoscopic surveillance of patients with extensive gastric premalignant conditions such as extensive atrophy or intestinal metaplasia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-utility economic analysis was performed from a societal perspective in Portugal using a Markov model to compare two strategies: surveillance versus no surveillance. Clinical data were collected from a systematic review of the literature, costs from published national data, and community utilities derived from a population study by the EuroQol questionnaire in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Population started at age 50, for a time horizon of 25 years and an annual discount rate of 3% was used for cost and effectiveness. Primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of a 3-yearly endoscopic surveillance versus no surveillance for a base case scenario and in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Secondary outcomes were ICER of 5- and 10-yearly endoscopic surveillance versus no surveillance. RESULTS: Endoscopic surveillance every 3 years provided an ICER of € 18,336, below the adopted threshold of € 36,575 which corresponds to the proposed guideline limit of USD 50,000 and this strategy dominated surveillance every 5 or 10 years. Utilities for endoscopic treatment were relevant in deterministic analysis, while probabilistic analysis showed that in 78% of cases the model was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic surveillance every 3 years of patients with premalignant conditions is cost-effective.
Authors: Raf Bisschops; Miguel Areia; Emmanuel Coron; Daniela Dobru; Bernd Kaskas; Roman Kuvaev; Oliver Pech; Krish Ragunath; Bas Weusten; Pietro Familiari; Dirk Domagk; Roland Valori; Michal F Kaminski; Cristiano Spada; Michael Bretthauer; Cathy Bennett; Carlo Senore; Mário Dinis-Ribeiro; Matthew D Rutter Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2016-08-21 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Matthew Banks; David Graham; Marnix Jansen; Takuji Gotoda; Sergio Coda; Massimiliano di Pietro; Noriya Uedo; Pradeep Bhandari; D Mark Pritchard; Ernst J Kuipers; Manuel Rodriguez-Justo; Marco R Novelli; Krish Ragunath; Neil Shepherd; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro Journal: Gut Date: 2019-07-05 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Jan Bornschein; Terry Tran-Nguyen; Gloria Fernandez-Esparrach; Stephen Ash; Francesc Balaguer; Elizabeth L Bird-Lieberman; Henry Córdova; Zane Dzerve; Matteo Fassan; Marcis Leja; Ivan Lyutakov; Tim Middelburg; Leticia Moreira; Radislav Nakov; Stella A V Nieuwenburg; Anthony O'Connor; Stefano Realdon; Heiko De Schepper; Annemieke Smet; M C W Spaander; Ivars Tolmanis; Tadas Urbonas; Jochen Weigt; Georgina L Hold; Alexander Link; Juozas Kupcinskas Journal: Dig Dis Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 2.404
Authors: Sergio Lario; Anna Brunet-Vega; María E Quílez; María J Ramírez-Lázaro; Juan J Lozano; Lorena García-Martínez; Carles Pericay; Mireia Miquel; Félix Junquera; Rafael Campo; Xavier Calvet Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2018-02-28 Impact factor: 4.623