Erin K Greenleaf1, Joshua S Winder1, Christopher S Hollenbeak2,3, Randy S Haluck1, Abraham Mathew4, Eric M Pauli1. 1. Department of Surgery, The Pennsylvania State University, College of Medicine, 500 University Drive, H151, Hershey, PA, 17033-0850, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, The Pennsylvania State University, College of Medicine, 500 University Drive, H151, Hershey, PA, 17033-0850, USA. chollenbeak@psu.edu. 3. Department of Public Health Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, College of Medicine, 500 University Drive, H151, Hershey, PA, 17033-0850, USA. chollenbeak@psu.edu. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, The Pennsylvania State University, College of Medicine, 500 University Drive, H151, Hershey, PA, 17033-0850, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has recently emerged as a viable option relative to the classic approach of laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) for the treatment of esophageal achalasia. In this cost-utility analysis of POEM and LHM, we hypothesized that POEM would be cost-effective relative to LHM. METHODS: A stochastic cost-utility analysis of treatment for achalasia was performed to determine the cost-effectiveness of POEM relative to LHM. Costs were estimated from the provider perspective and obtained from our institution's cost-accounting database. The measure of effectiveness was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) which were estimated from direct elicitation of utility using a visual analog scale. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Uncertainty was assessed by bootstrapping the sample and computing the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC). RESULTS: Patients treated within an 11-year period (2004-2016) were recruited for participation (20 POEM, 21 LHM). During the index admission, the mean costs for POEM ($8630 ± $2653) and the mean costs for LHM ($7604 ± $2091) were not significantly different (P = 0.179). Additionally, mean QALYs for POEM (0.413 ± 0.248) were higher than that associated with LHM (0.357 ± 0.338), but this difference was also not statistically significant (P = 0.55). The ICER suggested that it would cost an additional $18,536 for each QALY gained using POEM. There was substantial uncertainty in the ICER; there was a 48.25% probability that POEM was cost-effective at the mean ICER. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000, there was a 68.31% probability that POEM was cost-effective relative to LHM. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of achalasia, POEM appears to be cost-effective relative to LHM depending on one's willingness-to-pay for an additional QALY.
BACKGROUND: Per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has recently emerged as a viable option relative to the classic approach of laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) for the treatment of esophageal achalasia. In this cost-utility analysis of POEM and LHM, we hypothesized that POEM would be cost-effective relative to LHM. METHODS: A stochastic cost-utility analysis of treatment for achalasia was performed to determine the cost-effectiveness of POEM relative to LHM. Costs were estimated from the provider perspective and obtained from our institution's cost-accounting database. The measure of effectiveness was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) which were estimated from direct elicitation of utility using a visual analog scale. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Uncertainty was assessed by bootstrapping the sample and computing the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC). RESULTS:Patients treated within an 11-year period (2004-2016) were recruited for participation (20 POEM, 21 LHM). During the index admission, the mean costs for POEM ($8630 ± $2653) and the mean costs for LHM ($7604 ± $2091) were not significantly different (P = 0.179). Additionally, mean QALYs for POEM (0.413 ± 0.248) were higher than that associated with LHM (0.357 ± 0.338), but this difference was also not statistically significant (P = 0.55). The ICER suggested that it would cost an additional $18,536 for each QALY gained using POEM. There was substantial uncertainty in the ICER; there was a 48.25% probability that POEM was cost-effective at the mean ICER. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000, there was a 68.31% probability that POEM was cost-effective relative to LHM. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of achalasia, POEM appears to be cost-effective relative to LHM depending on one's willingness-to-pay for an additional QALY.
Entities:
Keywords:
Achalasia; Cost-effectiveness analysis; Heller myotomy; Per oral endoscopic myotomy
Authors: Yuki B Werner; Guido Costamagna; Lee L Swanström; Daniel von Renteln; Pietro Familiari; Ahmed M Sharata; Tania Noder; Guido Schachschal; Jan F Kersten; Thomas Rösch Journal: Gut Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: P Marco Fisichella; Steven R DeMeester; Eric Hungness; Silvana Perretta; Nathaniel J Soper; Alexander Rosemurgy; Alfonso Torquati; Ajit K Sachdeva; Marco G Patti Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2015-02-13 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Ezra N Teitelbaum; Shankar Rajeswaran; Raymond Zhang; Ryan T Sieberg; Frank H Miller; Nathaniel J Soper; Eric S Hungness Journal: Surgery Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Emily S Lukacz; Jean M Lawrence; Raoul J Burchette; Karl M Luber; Charles W Nager; J Galen Buckwalter Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Guilherme M Campos; Eric Vittinghoff; Charlotte Rabl; Mark Takata; Michael Gadenstätter; Feng Lin; Ruxandra Ciovica Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Eric S Hungness; Joel M Sternbach; Ezra N Teitelbaum; Peter J Kahrilas; John E Pandolfino; Nathaniel J Soper Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Vivek Kumbhari; Alan H Tieu; Manabu Onimaru; Mohammad H El Zein; Ezra N Teitelbaum; Michael B Ujiki; Matthew E Gitelis; Rani J Modayil; Eric S Hungness; Stavros N Stavropoulos; Hiro Shiwaku; Rastislav Kunda; Philip Chiu; Payal Saxena; Ahmed A Messallam; Haruhiro Inoue; Mouen A Khashab Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2015-04-13
Authors: Lena Shally; Kashif Saeed; Derek Berglund; Mark Dudash; Katie Frank; Vladan N Obradovic; Anthony T Petrick; David L Diehl; Jon D Gabrielsen; David M Parker Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-10-11 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: Alexander J Podboy; Joo Ha Hwang; Homero Rivas; Dan Azagury; Mary Hawn; James Lau; Afrin Kamal; Shai Friedland; George Triadafilopoulos; Thomas Zikos; John O Clarke Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Madhusudhan R Sanaka; Pravallika Chadalavada; Fahrettin Covut; Rajat Garg; Prashanthi N Thota; Scott Gabbard; Mohammad Alomari; Sudish Murthy; Siva Raja Journal: Esophagus Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 4.230
Authors: Armin Kuellmer; Juliane Behn; Torsten Beyna; Brigitte Schumacher; Alexander Meining; Helmut Messmann; Horst Neuhaus; David Albers; Michael Birk; Andreas Probst; Martin Faehndrich; Thomas Frieling; Martin Goetz; Robert Thimme; Karel Caca; Arthur Schmidt Journal: BMJ Open Gastroenterol Date: 2020-08