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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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