César Augusto Guevara-Cuellar1, María Paula Rengifo-Mosquera2, Elizabeth Parody-Rúa2. 1. Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Icesi, Calle 18 No. 122-135 Pance, 70000, Cali, Colombia. cguevara@icesi.edu.co. 2. Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Icesi, Calle 18 No. 122-135 Pance, 70000, Cali, Colombia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditionally, uncomplicated acute appendicitis (AA) has been treated with appendectomy. However, the surgical alternatives might carry out significant complications, impaired quality of life, and higher costs than nonoperative treatment. Consequently, it is necessary to evaluate the different therapeutic alternatives' cost-effectiveness in patients diagnosed with uncomplicated appendicitis. METHODS: We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18-60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer´s perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was 5 years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. METHODS: We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18-60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer's perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was five years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: LA presents a lower cost ($363 ± 35) than OA ($384 ± 41) and NOM ($392 ± 44). NOM exhibited higher QALYs (3.3332 ± 0.0276) in contrast with LA (3.3310 ± 0.057) and OA (3.3261 ± 0.0707). LA dominated the OA. The ICER between LA and NOM was $24,000/QALY. LA has a 52% probability of generating the highest NMB versus its counterparts, followed by NOM (30%) and OA (18%). There is a probability of 0.69 that laparoscopy generates more significant benefit than medical management. The mean value of that incremental NMB would be $93.7 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: LA is a cost-effectiveness alternative in the management of patients with uncomplicated AA. Besides, LA has a high probability of producing more significant monetary benefits than NOM and OA from the payer's perspective in the Colombian health system.
BACKGROUND: Traditionally, uncomplicated acute appendicitis (AA) has been treated with appendectomy. However, the surgical alternatives might carry out significant complications, impaired quality of life, and higher costs than nonoperative treatment. Consequently, it is necessary to evaluate the different therapeutic alternatives' cost-effectiveness in patients diagnosed with uncomplicated appendicitis. METHODS: We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18-60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer´s perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was 5 years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. METHODS: We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18-60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer's perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was five years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: LA presents a lower cost ($363 ± 35) than OA ($384 ± 41) and NOM ($392 ± 44). NOM exhibited higher QALYs (3.3332 ± 0.0276) in contrast with LA (3.3310 ± 0.057) and OA (3.3261 ± 0.0707). LA dominated the OA. The ICER between LA and NOM was $24,000/QALY. LA has a 52% probability of generating the highest NMB versus its counterparts, followed by NOM (30%) and OA (18%). There is a probability of 0.69 that laparoscopy generates more significant benefit than medical management. The mean value of that incremental NMB would be $93.7 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: LA is a cost-effectiveness alternative in the management of patients with uncomplicated AA. Besides, LA has a high probability of producing more significant monetary benefits than NOM and OA from the payer's perspective in the Colombian health system.
Entities:
Keywords:
Acute appendicitis; Cost-effectiveness; Laparoscopic appendectomy; Nonoperative management; Open appendectomy
Authors: Giancarlo Buitrago; Edgar Junca; Javier Eslava-Schmalbach; Ruben Caycedo; Pilar Pinillos; Luis Carlos Leal Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Alejandro Ruiz-Patiño; Samuel Rey; German Molina; Luis Carlos Dominguez; Saul Rugeles Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Paulina Salminen; Hannu Paajanen; Tero Rautio; Pia Nordström; Markku Aarnio; Tuomo Rantanen; Risto Tuominen; Saija Hurme; Johanna Virtanen; Jukka-Pekka Mecklin; Juhani Sand; Airi Jartti; Irina Rinta-Kiikka; Juha M Grönroos Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-06-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Salomone Di Saverio; Mauro Podda; Belinda De Simone; Marco Ceresoli; Goran Augustin; Alice Gori; Marja Boermeester; Massimo Sartelli; Federico Coccolini; Antonio Tarasconi; Nicola De' Angelis; Dieter G Weber; Matti Tolonen; Arianna Birindelli; Walter Biffl; Ernest E Moore; Michael Kelly; Kjetil Soreide; Jeffry Kashuk; Richard Ten Broek; Carlos Augusto Gomes; Michael Sugrue; Richard Justin Davies; Dimitrios Damaskos; Ari Leppäniemi; Andrew Kirkpatrick; Andrew B Peitzman; Gustavo P Fraga; Ronald V Maier; Raul Coimbra; Massimo Chiarugi; Gabriele Sganga; Adolfo Pisanu; Gian Luigi De' Angelis; Edward Tan; Harry Van Goor; Francesco Pata; Isidoro Di Carlo; Osvaldo Chiara; Andrey Litvin; Fabio C Campanile; Boris Sakakushev; Gia Tomadze; Zaza Demetrashvili; Rifat Latifi; Fakri Abu-Zidan; Oreste Romeo; Helmut Segovia-Lohse; Gianluca Baiocchi; David Costa; Sandro Rizoli; Zsolt J Balogh; Cino Bendinelli; Thomas Scalea; Rao Ivatury; George Velmahos; Roland Andersson; Yoram Kluger; Luca Ansaloni; Fausto Catena Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: S Sippola; J Grönroos; R Tuominen; H Paajanen; T Rautio; P Nordström; M Aarnio; T Rantanen; S Hurme; P Salminen Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Massimo Sartelli; Gian L Baiocchi; Salomone Di Saverio; Francesco Ferrara; Francesco M Labricciosa; Luca Ansaloni; Federico Coccolini; Deepak Vijayan; Ashraf Abbas; Hariscine K Abongwa; John Agboola; Adamu Ahmed; Lali Akhmeteli; Nezih Akkapulu; Seckin Akkucuk; Fatih Altintoprak; Aurelia L Andreiev; Dimitrios Anyfantakis; Boiko Atanasov; Miklosh Bala; Dimitrios Balalis; Oussama Baraket; Giovanni Bellanova; Marcelo Beltran; Renato Bessa Melo; Roberto Bini; Konstantinos Bouliaris; Daniele Brunelli; Adrian Castillo; Marco Catani; Asri Che Jusoh; Alain Chichom-Mefire; Gianfranco Cocorullo; Raul Coimbra; Elif Colak; Silvia Costa; Koray Das; Samir Delibegovic; Zaza Demetrashvili; Isidoro Di Carlo; Nadezda Kiseleva; Tamer El Zalabany; Mario Faro; Margarida Ferreira; Gustavo P Fraga; Mahir Gachabayov; Wagih M Ghnnam; Teresa Giménez Maurel; Georgios Gkiokas; Carlos A Gomes; Ewen Griffiths; Ali Guner; Sanjay Gupta; Andreas Hecker; Elcio S Hirano; Adrien Hodonou; Martin Hutan; Orestis Ioannidis; Arda Isik; Georgy Ivakhov; Sumita Jain; Mantas Jokubauskas; Aleksandar Karamarkovic; Saila Kauhanen; Robin Kaushik; Alfie Kavalakat; Jakub Kenig; Vladimir Khokha; Desmond Khor; Dennis Kim; Jae I Kim; Victor Kong; Konstantinos Lasithiotakis; Pedro Leão; Miguel Leon; Andrey Litvin; Varut Lohsiriwat; Eudaldo López-Tomassetti Fernandez; Eftychios Lostoridis; James Maciel; Piotr Major; Ana Dimova; Dimitrios Manatakis; Athanasio Marinis; Aleix Martinez-Perez; Sanjay Marwah; Michael McFarlane; Cristian Mesina; Michał Pędziwiatr; Nickos Michalopoulos; Evangelos Misiakos; Ali Mohamedahmed; Radu Moldovanu; Giulia Montori; Raghuveer Mysore Narayana; Ionut Negoi; Ioannis Nikolopoulos; Giuseppe Novelli; Viktors Novikovs; Iyiade Olaoye; Abdelkarim Omari; Carlos A Ordoñez; Mouaqit Ouadii; Zeynep Ozkan; Ajay Pal; Gian M Palini; Lars I Partecke; Francesco Pata; Michał Pędziwiatr; Gerson A Pereira Júnior; Tadeja Pintar; Magdalena Pisarska; Cesar F Ploneda-Valencia; Konstantinos Pouggouras; Vinod Prabhu; Padmakumar Ramakrishnapillai; Jean-Marc Regimbeau; Marianne Reitz; Daniel Rios-Cruz; Sten Saar; Boris Sakakushev; Charalampos Seretis; Alexander Sazhin; Vishal Shelat; Matej Skrovina; Dmitry Smirnov; Charalampos Spyropoulos; Marcin Strzałka; Peep Talving; Ricardo A Teixeira Gonsaga; George Theobald; Gia Tomadze; Myftar Torba; Cristian Tranà; Jan Ulrych; Mustafa Y Uzunoğlu; Alin Vasilescu; Savino Occhionorelli; Aurélien Venara; Andras Vereczkei; Nereo Vettoretto; Nutu Vlad; Maciej Walędziak; Tonguç U Yilmaz; Kuo-Ching Yuan; Cui Yunfeng; Justas Zilinskas; Gérard Grelpois; Fausto Catena Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 5.469