Cost‐Utility Analysis of Endoscopic Surveillance of Patients with Gastric Premalignant Conditions. Issue 6 (28th August 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Areia, Miguel; Dinis‐Ribeiro, Mário; Rocha Gonçalves, Francisco
• Is Part Of: Helicobacter. Volume 19:Issue 6(2014:Dec.)
• Page Start: 425
• Page End: 436
• Publication Date: 2014-08-28
• Subjects: Atrophic gastritis -- cost‐benefit analysis -- cost‐effectiveness -- gastric neoplasm -- gastrointestinal endoscopy; Helicobacter -- Periodicals; Helicobacter infections -- Periodicals; Stomach -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.3301405
• DOI: 10.1111/hel.12150
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1083-4389

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Progression of extensive gastric premalignant conditions to cancer might warrant surveillance programms. Recent guidelines suggest a 3‐yearly endoscopic follow‐up for these patients. Our aim was to determine the cost utility of endoscopic surveillance of patients with extensive gastric premalignant conditions such as extensive atrophy or intestinal metaplasia. Materials and Methods: A cost‐utility economic analysis was performed from a societal perspective in Portugal using a Markov model to compare two strategies: surveillance versus no surveillance. Clinical data were collected from a systematic review of the literature, costs from published national data, and community utilities derived from a population study by the EuroQol questionnaire in terms of quality‐adjusted life years (QALY). Population started at age 50, for a time horizon of 25 years and an annual discount rate of 3% was used for cost and effectiveness. Primary outcome was the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of a 3‐yearly endoscopic surveillance versus no surveillance for a base case scenario and in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Secondary outcomes were ICER of 5‐ and 10‐yearly endoscopic surveillance versus no surveillance. Results: Endoscopic surveillance every 3 years provided an ICER of € 18, 336, below the adopted threshold of € 36, 575 which corresponds to the proposed guideline limit of USD 50, 000 and this strategy dominated surveillance every 5 or 10 years. Utilities for endoscopic treatment were relevant in deterministic analysis, while probabilistic analysis showed that in 78% of cases the model was cost‐effective. Conclusions: Endoscopic surveillance every 3 years of patients with premalignant conditions is cost‐effective.