Jing Ma1, Miao Yu1, Qiao-Qiao Shao1, Xue-Chun Yu1, Chen Zhang1, Jun-Bo Zhao1, Lin Yuan1, Ya-Bin Qi1, Ruo-Bing Hu1, Pei-Ru Wei1, Wei Xiao1, Qi Chen2, Bai-Ling Jia1, Chuan-Liang Chen3, Hong Lu4, Song-Ze Ding1. 1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, People's Hospital of Zhengzhou University, and Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, China. 2. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 3. Department of Medical Imaging, People's Hospital of Zhengzhou University, and Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, China. 4. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Key Laboratory of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Ministry of Health, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection and its related diseases are substantial public health burden for highly infected areas. Recently, a novel family-based H. pylori infection control and management (FBCM) strategy is introduced for H. pylori infection prevention and control. However, its cost-effectiveness has not been evaluated. We conducted this health economic evaluation to investigate the cost-effectiveness of FBCM, screen-and-treat, and no-screen strategies in Chinese population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using decision tree and Markov model. Parameters required for the model were from published literatures and public databases, including health state utility, screening characteristics, treatment effectiveness, and medical costs for the three strategies. Outcomes were cost, quality-adjusted life year (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Uncertainty analysis was performed to verify the robustness of this model. RESULTS: To prevent gastric cancer in a cohort of 1 million asymptomatic Chinese families, FBCM and screen-and-treat strategies prevented 1010 and 1201 new gastric cancer cases, reduced 2809 and 3339 gastric cancer-related death, and saved 956,971 and 1,137,549 QALYs, respectively, when compared with no-screen strategy. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that FBCM strategy cost $9.18/QALY, and screen-and-treat strategy cost $12.08/QALY for gastric cancer prevention when compared with no-screen strategy. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that screening from younger age by both strategies are more cost-effective. When compared with FBCM strategy, screen-and-treat strategy saved 5.98% gastric cancer cases and 5.78% of gastric cancer deaths, but costed $9348 to reduce a gastric cancer case. Results are not sensitive to any variables, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed robustness of the results. CONCLUSIONS: Both FBCM and screen-and-treat strategies are cost-effective for gastric cancer prevention compared with no-screen strategy. Since FBCM is more practical and convenient, it may be an efficient and excellent cost-effective strategy for gastric cancer prevention in H. pylori and gastric cancer prevalent areas.
BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection and its related diseases are substantial public health burden for highly infected areas. Recently, a novel family-based H. pylori infection control and management (FBCM) strategy is introduced for H. pylori infection prevention and control. However, its cost-effectiveness has not been evaluated. We conducted this health economic evaluation to investigate the cost-effectiveness of FBCM, screen-and-treat, and no-screen strategies in Chinese population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using decision tree and Markov model. Parameters required for the model were from published literatures and public databases, including health state utility, screening characteristics, treatment effectiveness, and medical costs for the three strategies. Outcomes were cost, quality-adjusted life year (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Uncertainty analysis was performed to verify the robustness of this model. RESULTS: To prevent gastric cancer in a cohort of 1 million asymptomatic Chinese families, FBCM and screen-and-treat strategies prevented 1010 and 1201 new gastric cancer cases, reduced 2809 and 3339 gastric cancer-related death, and saved 956,971 and 1,137,549 QALYs, respectively, when compared with no-screen strategy. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that FBCM strategy cost $9.18/QALY, and screen-and-treat strategy cost $12.08/QALY for gastric cancer prevention when compared with no-screen strategy. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that screening from younger age by both strategies are more cost-effective. When compared with FBCM strategy, screen-and-treat strategy saved 5.98% gastric cancer cases and 5.78% of gastric cancer deaths, but costed $9348 to reduce a gastric cancer case. Results are not sensitive to any variables, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed robustness of the results. CONCLUSIONS: Both FBCM and screen-and-treat strategies are cost-effective for gastric cancer prevention compared with no-screen strategy. Since FBCM is more practical and convenient, it may be an efficient and excellent cost-effective strategy for gastric cancer prevention in H. pylori and gastric cancer prevalent areas.