BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data on the economic impact associated with screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) are limited. As part of a comparative effectiveness randomized trial of unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) and sedated EGD (sEGD), we assessed costs associated with BE screening. METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to 3 techniques: sEGD or uTNE in a hospital setting (huTNE) versus uTNE in a mobile research van (muTNE). Patients were called 1 and 30 days after screening to assess loss of work (because of the screening procedure) and medical care sought after procedure. Direct medical costs were extracted from billing claims databases. Indirect costs (loss of work for subject and caregiver) were estimated using patient reported data. Statistical analyses including multivariable analysis accounting for comorbidities were conducted to compare costs. RESULTS:Two hundred nine patients were screened (61 sEGD, 72 huTNE, and 76 muTNE). Thirty-day direct medical costs and indirect costs were significantly higher in the sEGD than the huTNE and muTNE groups. Total costs (direct medical + indirect costs) were also significantly higher in the sEGD than in the uTNE group. The muTNE group had significantly lower costs than the huTNE group. Adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidities on multivariable analysis did not change this conclusion. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term direct, indirect, and total costs of screening are significantly lower with uTNE compared with sEGD. Mobile uTNE costs were lower than huTNE costs, raising the possibility of mobile screening as a novel method of screening for BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data on the economic impact associated with screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) are limited. As part of a comparative effectiveness randomized trial of unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) and sedated EGD (sEGD), we assessed costs associated with BE screening. METHODS:Patients were randomly allocated to 3 techniques: sEGD or uTNE in a hospital setting (huTNE) versus uTNE in a mobile research van (muTNE). Patients were called 1 and 30 days after screening to assess loss of work (because of the screening procedure) and medical care sought after procedure. Direct medical costs were extracted from billing claims databases. Indirect costs (loss of work for subject and caregiver) were estimated using patient reported data. Statistical analyses including multivariable analysis accounting for comorbidities were conducted to compare costs. RESULTS: Two hundred nine patients were screened (61 sEGD, 72 huTNE, and 76 muTNE). Thirty-day direct medical costs and indirect costs were significantly higher in the sEGD than the huTNE and muTNE groups. Total costs (direct medical + indirect costs) were also significantly higher in the sEGD than in the uTNE group. The muTNE group had significantly lower costs than the huTNE group. Adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidities on multivariable analysis did not change this conclusion. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term direct, indirect, and total costs of screening are significantly lower with uTNE compared with sEGD. Mobile uTNE costs were lower than huTNE costs, raising the possibility of mobile screening as a novel method of screening for BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma.
Authors: Hashem B El-Serag; Aanand D Naik; Zhigang Duan; Mohammad Shakhatreh; Ashley Helm; Amita Pathak; Marilyn Hinojosa-Lindsey; Jason Hou; Theresa Nguyen; John Chen; Jennifer R Kramer Journal: Gut Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Prateek Sharma; David A Katzka; Neil Gupta; Jaffer Ajani; Navtej Buttar; Amitabh Chak; Douglas Corley; Hashem El-Serag; Gary W Falk; Rebecca Fitzgerald; John Goldblum; Frank Gress; David H Ilson; John M Inadomi; Ernest J Kuipers; John P Lynch; Frank McKeon; David Metz; Pankaj J Pasricha; Oliver Pech; Richard Peek; Jeffrey H Peters; Alessandro Repici; Stefan Seewald; Nicholas J Shaheen; Rhonda F Souza; Stuart J Spechler; Prashanth Vennalaganti; Kenneth Wang Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2015-08-19 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: John M Inadomi; Ma Somsouk; Ryan D Madanick; Jennifer P Thomas; Nicholas J Shaheen Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2009-03-06 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: S Kroep; I Lansdorp-Vogelaar; J H Rubenstein; V E P P Lemmens; E B van Heijningen; N Aragonés; M van Ballegooijen; J M Inadomi Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-12-17 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: M Kareem Shariff; Elizabeth L Bird-Lieberman; Maria O'Donovan; Zarah Abdullahi; Xinxue Liu; Jane Blazeby; Rebecca Fitzgerald Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Christopher H Blevins; Jason S Egginton; Nilay D Shah; Michele L Johnson; Prasad G Iyer Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2018 Nov/Dec Impact factor: 3.062
Authors: Sarmed S Sami; Prasad G Iyer; Prachi Pophali; Magnus Halland; Massimiliano di Pietro; Jacobo Ortiz-Fernandez-Sordo; Jonathan R White; Michele Johnson; Indra Neil Guha; Rebecca C Fitzgerald; Krish Ragunath Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: John J McGoran; Mark E McAlindon; Prasad G Iyer; Eric J Seibel; Rehan Haidry; Laurence B Lovat; Sarmed S Sami Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Prasad G Iyer; William R Taylor; Michele L Johnson; Ramona L Lansing; Kristyn A Maixner; Lois L Hemminger; Frances K Cayer; Tracy C Yab; Mary E Devens; Seth W Slettedahl; Brendan T Broderick; Douglas W Mahoney; Maria C McGlinch; Calise K Berger; Patrick H Foote; Maria Giakomopoulos; Hatim Allawi; Thomas C Smyrk; Kenneth K Wang; David A Katzka; Herbert C Wolfsen; James A Burke; David A Ahlquist; John B Kisiel Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 12.045
Authors: Sarmed S Sami; James P Moriarty; Jordan K Rosedahl; Bijan J Borah; David A Katzka; Kenneth K Wang; John B Kisiel; Krish Ragunath; Joel H Rubenstein; Prasad G Iyer Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 12.045