Jin Tong Wu1, Jun Zhou1, Nasheen Naidoo2, Wen Yu Yang1, Xiao Cheng Lin1, Pei Wang3, Jin Qin Ding1, Chen Bin Wu1, Hui Jun Zhou4. 1. First Affiliated Hospital of Fuzhou General Hospital, Pu Tian City Fu Jian province, PR China. 2. Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Stellenbosch, Tygerberg, Cape Town, South Africa. 3. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore. 4. Pharmacy and Therapeutics Office, Group Corporate Development, National Healthcare Group, Singapore.
Abstract
AIM: To identify the optimal strategy for gastric cancer (GC) prevention by evaluating the cost-effectiveness of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)-based preventive strategies. METHODS: We conducted a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis. Adopting a healthcare payer's perspective, Markov models simulated the clinical experience of the target population (Singaporean Chinese 50-69 years old) undergoing endoscopic screening, endoscopic surveillance and usual care of do-nothing. The screening strategy examined the cohort every alternate year whereas the surveillance strategy provided annual EGD only to people with precancerous lesions. For each strategy, discounted lifetime costs ($) and quality adjusted life years (QALY) were estimated and compared to generate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to identify influential parameters and quantify the impact of model uncertainties. RESULTS: Annual EGD surveillance with an ICER of $34 200/QALY was deemed cost-effective for GC prevention within the Singapore healthcare system. To inform implementation, the models identified six influential factors and their respective thresholds, namely discount rate (<4.20%), age of starting surveillance (>51.6 years), proportion of program cost in delivering endoscopy (<65%), cost of follow-up EGD (<$484), utility of stage 1 GC patients (>0.72) and odds ratio of GC for high-risk subjects (>3.93). The likelihood that surveillance is the most cost-effective strategy is 69.5% accounting for model uncertainties. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic surveillance of gastric premalignancies can be a cost-effective strategy for GC prevention. Its implementation requires careful assessment on factors influencing the actual cost-effectiveness.
AIM: To identify the optimal strategy for gastric cancer (GC) prevention by evaluating the cost-effectiveness of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)-based preventive strategies. METHODS: We conducted a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis. Adopting a healthcare payer's perspective, Markov models simulated the clinical experience of the target population (Singaporean Chinese 50-69 years old) undergoing endoscopic screening, endoscopic surveillance and usual care of do-nothing. The screening strategy examined the cohort every alternate year whereas the surveillance strategy provided annual EGD only to people with precancerous lesions. For each strategy, discounted lifetime costs ($) and quality adjusted life years (QALY) were estimated and compared to generate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to identify influential parameters and quantify the impact of model uncertainties. RESULTS: Annual EGD surveillance with an ICER of $34 200/QALY was deemed cost-effective for GC prevention within the Singapore healthcare system. To inform implementation, the models identified six influential factors and their respective thresholds, namely discount rate (<4.20%), age of starting surveillance (>51.6 years), proportion of program cost in delivering endoscopy (<65%), cost of follow-up EGD (<$484), utility of stage 1 GC patients (>0.72) and odds ratio of GC for high-risk subjects (>3.93). The likelihood that surveillance is the most cost-effective strategy is 69.5% accounting for model uncertainties. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic surveillance of gastric premalignancies can be a cost-effective strategy for GC prevention. Its implementation requires careful assessment on factors influencing the actual cost-effectiveness.
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