Kate E Lee1, Francesca Lim1, Adam S Faye2, Bo Shen1, Chin Hur3. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, 622 West 168th Street, New York, NY, 10032, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, New York University Langone Health, 550 First Ave, New York, NY, 10016, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, 622 West 168th Street, New York, NY, 10032, USA. ch447@cumc.columbia.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) has emerged as an alternative intervention to manage Crohn's disease (CD) strictures. We determined the cost-effectiveness of EBD versus resection surgery for patients with short (< 4-5 cm) primary or secondary/anastomotic small or large bowel strictures. METHODS: A microsimulation state-transition model analyzed the benefits and risks of EBD and resection surgery for patients with primary or anastomotic CD strictures. Our primary outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over ten years, and strategies were compared using a willingness to pay of $100,000/QALY from a societal perspective. Costs (2021 $US) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. Deterministic 1-way and probabilistic analyses assessed model uncertainty. RESULTS: The EBD strategy cost $19,822 and resulted in 6.18 QALYs while the surgery strategy cost $41,358 and resulted in 6.37 QALYs. Surgery had an ICER of $113,332 per QALY, making EBD a cost-effective strategy. The median number of EBDs was 5 in the EBD strategy and 0 in the surgery strategy. The median number of surgeries was 2 in the surgery strategy and 1 in the EBD strategy. Of individuals who initially received EBD, 50.4% underwent subsequent surgery. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the probabilities of requiring repeated interventions, surgery mortality (< 0.7%), and quality of life after interventions were the most influential model parameters. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses favored EBD in 50.9% of iterations. CONCLUSIONS: EBD is a cost-effective strategy for managing CD strictures. Differences in patient risk and quality of life after intervention impact cost-effectiveness. Intervention decisions should consider cost-effectiveness, patient risks, and quality of life.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) has emerged as an alternative intervention to manage Crohn's disease (CD) strictures. We determined the cost-effectiveness of EBD versus resection surgery for patients with short (< 4-5 cm) primary or secondary/anastomotic small or large bowel strictures. METHODS: A microsimulation state-transition model analyzed the benefits and risks of EBD and resection surgery for patients with primary or anastomotic CD strictures. Our primary outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over ten years, and strategies were compared using a willingness to pay of $100,000/QALY from a societal perspective. Costs (2021 $US) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. Deterministic 1-way and probabilistic analyses assessed model uncertainty. RESULTS: The EBD strategy cost $19,822 and resulted in 6.18 QALYs while the surgery strategy cost $41,358 and resulted in 6.37 QALYs. Surgery had an ICER of $113,332 per QALY, making EBD a cost-effective strategy. The median number of EBDs was 5 in the EBD strategy and 0 in the surgery strategy. The median number of surgeries was 2 in the surgery strategy and 1 in the EBD strategy. Of individuals who initially received EBD, 50.4% underwent subsequent surgery. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the probabilities of requiring repeated interventions, surgery mortality (< 0.7%), and quality of life after interventions were the most influential model parameters. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses favored EBD in 50.9% of iterations. CONCLUSIONS: EBD is a cost-effective strategy for managing CD strictures. Differences in patient risk and quality of life after intervention impact cost-effectiveness. Intervention decisions should consider cost-effectiveness, patient risks, and quality of life.
Authors: Bo Shen; Gursimran Kochhar; Udayakumar Navaneethan; Francis A Farraye; David A Schwartz; Marietta Iacucci; Charles N Bernstein; Gerald Dryden; Raymond Cross; David H Bruining; Taku Kobayashi; Martin Lukas; Amandeep Shergill; Martin Bortlik; Nan Lan; Milan Lukas; Shou-Jiang Tang; Paulo Gustavo Kotze; Ravi P Kiran; Parambir S Dulai; Sandra El-Hachem; Nayantara Coelho-Prabhu; Shyam Thakkar; Ren Mao; Guodong Chen; Shengyu Zhang; Begoña González Suárez; Yago Gonzalez Lama; Mark S Silverberg; William J Sandborn Journal: Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2020-01-16
Authors: Kelvin T Thia; William J Sandborn; William S Harmsen; Alan R Zinsmeister; Edward V Loftus Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2010-07-14 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Bhavana B Rao; Benjamin H Click; Ioannis E Koutroubakis; Claudia Ramos Rivers; Miguel Regueiro; Jason Swoger; Marc Schwartz; Jana Hashash; Arthur Barrie; Michael A Dunn; David G Binion Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 5.325