Economic value of narrow-band imaging versus white light endoscopy for the diagnosis and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus: Cost-consequence model.
Adult
Barrett Esophagus
/ diagnostic imaging
Cost Savings
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Disease Progression
England
Esophageal Neoplasms
/ economics
Esophagoscopy
/ adverse effects
Esophagus
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Humans
Image-Guided Biopsy
/ economics
Male
Mass Screening
/ adverse effects
Models, Economic
Narrow Band Imaging
/ adverse effects
Precancerous Conditions
/ diagnostic imaging
State Medicine
/ economics
Young Adult
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
28
06
2018
accepted:
12
02
2019
entrez:
14
3
2019
pubmed:
14
3
2019
medline:
28
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Barrett's esophagus (BE) is an abnormality arising from gastroesophageal reflux disease that can progressively evolve into a sequence of dysplasia and adenocarcinoma. Progression of Barrett's esophagus into dysplasia is monitored with endoscopic surveillance. The current surveillance standard requests random biopsies plus targeted biopsies of suspicious lesions under white-light endoscopy, known as the Seattle protocol. Recently, published evidence has shown that narrow-band imaging (NBI) can guide targeted biopsies to identify dysplasia and reduce the need for random biopsies. We aimed to assess the health economic implications of adopting NBI-guided targeted biopsy vs. the Seattle protocol from a National Health Service England perspective. A decision tree model was developed to undertake a cost-consequence analysis. The model estimated total costs (i.e. staff and overheads; histopathology; adverse events; capital equipment) and clinical implications of monitoring a cohort of patients with known/suspected BE, on an annual basis. In the simulation, BE patients (N = 161,657 at Year 1; estimated annual increase: +20%) entered the model every year and underwent esophageal endoscopy. After 7 years, the adoption of NBI with targeted biopsies resulted in cost reduction of £458.0 mln vs. HD-WLE with random biopsies (overall costs: £1,966.2 mln and £2,424.2 mln, respectively). The incremental investment on capital equipment to upgrade hospitals with NBI (+£68.3 mln) was offset by savings due to the reduction of histological examinations (-£505.2 mln). Reduction of biopsies also determined savings for avoided adverse events (-£21.1 mln). In the base-case analysis, the two techniques had the same accuracy (number of correctly identified cases: 1.934 mln), but NBI was safer than HD-WLE. Budget impact analysis and cost-effectiveness analyses confirmed the findings of the cost-consequence analysis. In conclusion, NBI-guided targeted biopsies was a cost-saving strategy for NHS England, compared to current practice for detection of dysplasia in patients with BE, whilst maintaining at least comparable health outcomes for patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30865673
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212916
pii: PONE-D-18-18938
pmc: PMC6415878
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0212916Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
We have the following interests: This study was funded by Olympus. ZI and RK are employees of Olympus. Olympus is the manufacturer of NBI, a technology which is the focus of this study. GF and LH are employees of CBPartners. There are no further patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. This does not alter our adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Références
Can J Gastroenterol. 2008 Jun;22(6):565-70
pubmed: 18560635
Gut. 2013 Jan;62(1):15-21
pubmed: 22315471
Dis Esophagus. 2015 Aug-Sep;28(6):560-6
pubmed: 24758693
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Apr;83(4):684-98.e7
pubmed: 26874597
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Jul 6;103(13):1049-57
pubmed: 21680910
Gastroenterology. 2018 Apr;154(5):1282-1289.e2
pubmed: 29273452
Cancer. 1989 Jul 15;64(2):526-30
pubmed: 2736498
JAMA. 2002 Apr 17;287(15):1972-81
pubmed: 11960540
Am J Gastroenterol. 2008 May;103(5):1079-89
pubmed: 18445097
Endosc Int Open. 2016 May;4(5):E583-4
pubmed: 27227119
Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2015 Jun;44(2):203-31
pubmed: 26021191
N Engl J Med. 2011 Oct 13;365(15):1375-83
pubmed: 21995385
Med Clin North Am. 2002 Nov;86(6):1423-45, vii
pubmed: 12510459
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014 Jun;23(6):997-1006
pubmed: 24692500
Br J Surg. 2011 Nov;98(11):1589-98
pubmed: 22059235
Gastroenterology. 2017 Feb;152(3):564-570.e4
pubmed: 27818167
Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2018 Feb;42(1):31-39
pubmed: 29277482
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 May;87(5):1189-1194
pubmed: 28958906
J Med Econ. 2016 Nov;19(11):1040-1048
pubmed: 27207009
Gastroenterology. 1993 Jul;105(1):119-29
pubmed: 8514029
Am J Gastroenterol. 2008 Mar;103(3):788-97
pubmed: 18341497
Endoscopy. 2012 Dec;44(12):1089-95
pubmed: 23188660
Cancer. 1996 Oct 15;78(8):1820-8
pubmed: 8859198
Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Mar;85(3):482-495.e4
pubmed: 27670227
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Oct;76(4):707-18
pubmed: 22985638
N Engl J Med. 1985 Oct 3;313(14):857-9
pubmed: 4033716
Gastroenterology. 2011 Oct;141(4):1179-86, 1186.e1
pubmed: 21723218
Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2015 Jun;44(2):439-58
pubmed: 26021204
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Jul;7(7):736-42; quiz 710
pubmed: 19268726
N Engl J Med. 2009 May 28;360(22):2277-88
pubmed: 19474425