Literature DB >> 32618653

The Impact of the Policy-Practice Gap on Costs and Benefits of Barrett's Esophagus Management.

Amir-Houshang Omidvari1, Carlijn A M Roumans1,2, Steffie K Naber1, Sonja Kroep1, Bas P L Wijnhoven3, Ate van der Gaast4, Pieter-Jan de Jonge2, Manon C W Spaander2, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Clinical guidelines recommend surveillance of patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE). However, the surveillance intervals in practice are shorter than policy recommendations. We aimed to determine how this policy-practice gap affects the costs and benefits of BE surveillance.
METHODS: We used the Netherlands as an exemplary Western country and simulated a cohort of 60-year-old patients with BE using the Microsimulation Screening Analysis model-esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) microsimulation model. We evaluated surveillance according to the Dutch guideline and more intensive surveillance of patients without dysplastic BE and low-grade dysplasia. For each strategy, we computed the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and costs compared with no surveillance. We also performed a budget impact analysis to estimate the increased costs of BE management in the Netherlands for 2017.
RESULTS: Compared with no surveillance, the Dutch guideline incurred an additional &OV0556;5.0 ($5.7) million per 1,000 patients with BE for surveillance and treatment, whereas 57 esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) cases (>T1a) were prevented. With intensive and very intensive surveillance strategies for both nondysplastic BE and low-grade dysplasia, the net costs increased by another &OV0556;2.5-5.6 ($2.8-6.5) million while preventing 10-19 more EAC cases and gaining 33-60 more QALYs. On a population level, this amounted to &OV0556;21-47 ($24-54) million (+32%-70%) higher healthcare costs in 2017. DISCUSSION: The policy-practice gap in BE surveillance intervals results in 50%-114% higher net costs for BE management for only 10%-18% increase in QALYs gained, depending on actual intensity of surveillance. Incentives to eliminate this policy-practice gap should be developed to reduce the burden of BE management on patients and healthcare resources.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32618653      PMCID: PMC8563953          DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000578

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  37 in total

1.  Surveillance of Barrett's oesophagus: physicians' practices and review of current guidelines.

Authors:  J W van Sandick; J F Bartelsman; J J van Lanschot; G N Tytgat; H Obertop
Journal:  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 2.566

2.  Radiofrequency Ablation of Barrett's Esophagus Reduces Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Incidence and Mortality in a Comparative Modeling Analysis.

Authors:  Sonja Kroep; Curtis R Heberle; Kit Curtius; Chung Yin Kong; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Ayman Ali; W Asher Wolf; Nicholas J Shaheen; Stuart J Spechler; Joel H Rubenstein; Norman S Nishioka; Stephen J Meltzer; William D Hazelton; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Angela C Tramontano; G Scott Gazelle; E Georg Luebeck; John M Inadomi; Chin Hur
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2017-01-12       Impact factor: 11.382

3.  Surveillance in patients with long-segment Barrett's oesophagus: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  F Kastelein; S van Olphen; E W Steyerberg; M Sikkema; M C W Spaander; C W N Looman; E J Kuipers; P D Siersema; M J Bruno; E W de Bekker-Grob
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2014-07-18       Impact factor: 23.059

4.  Endoscopic complications: the Texas experience.

Authors:  R E Davis; D Y Graham
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1979-11       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  The role of overdiagnosis and reclassification in the marked increase of esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence.

Authors:  Heiko Pohl; H Gilbert Welch
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-01-19       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux as a risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  J Lagergren; R Bergström; A Lindgren; O Nyrén
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1999-03-18       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  External Validation of the Michigan Barrett's Esophagus Prediction Tool.

Authors:  Aaron P Thrift; Thomas L Vaughan; Lesley A Anderson; David C Whiteman; Hashem B El-Serag
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2017-03-11       Impact factor: 11.382

8.  Surveillance history of endoscopically treated patients with early Barrett's neoplasia: nonadherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol leads to sampling error.

Authors:  F P Peters; W L Curvers; W D Rosmolen; C E de Vries; F J W Ten Kate; K K Krishnadath; P Fockens; J J G H M Bergman
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2008-04-22       Impact factor: 3.429

9.  Colorectal Cancer: Cost-effectiveness of Colonoscopy versus CT Colonography Screening with Participation Rates and Costs.

Authors:  Miriam P van der Meulen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; S Lucas Goede; Ernst J Kuipers; Evelien Dekker; Jaap Stoker; Marjolein van Ballegooijen
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-02-27       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 10.  The incidence of esophageal cancer and high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Fouad Yousef; Chris Cardwell; Marie M Cantwell; Karen Galway; Brian T Johnston; Liam Murray
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2008-06-12       Impact factor: 4.897

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.