Dataset Information

Colonoscopy in poorly prepped colons: a cost effectiveness analysis comparing standard of care to a new cleansing technology.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The objective of this Markov model lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis was to evaluate a new medical device technology which minimizes redo colonoscopies on the outcomes of cost, quality of life, and aversion of colorectal cancers (CRC).

Methods

A new technology (PureVu® System) which cleans inadequately prepped colons was evaluated using TreeAge 2019 software in patients who presented with inadequate prep in outpatient settings in the US. PureVu was compared to the standard of care (SOC). Peer reviewed literature was used to identify the CRC incidence cancers based on missing polyps. Costs for procedures were derived from 2019 Medicare and from estimated private payer reimbursements. Base case costs, sensitivity analysis and incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) were evaluated. The cost of PureVu was $750.

Results

Assuming a national average compliance rate of 60% for colonoscopy, the use of PureVu saved the healthcare system $833-$992/patient depending upon the insurer when compared to SOC. QALYs were also improved with PureVu mainly due to a lower incidence of CRCs. In sensitivity analysis, SOC becomes less expensive than PureVu when compliance to screening for CRC using colonoscopy is ≤ 28%. Also, in order for SOC to be less expensive than PureVu, the list price of PureVu would need to exceed $1753. In incremental cost effectiveness analysis, PureVu dominated SOC.

Conclusion

Using the PureVu System to improve bowel prep can save the healthcare system $3.1-$3.7 billion per year, while ensuring a similar quality of life and reducing the incidence of CRCs.

SUBMITTER: Voigt J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8082895 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimswater is an imperfect agent for lens cleansing during endoscopy due to its incompetence to clean hydrophobic dirt, whereas amphiphilic surfactants have the potential to overcome the limitation of water. The trial was aimed to evaluate the cleansing effectiveness of 2 typical surfactants (simethicone solution and oolong tea) for colonoscopic lens.MethodsOolong tea (O-), low concentration simethicone solution (S1-), high concentration simethicone solution (S2-) and distilled water (D-) were used as washing solutions for colonoscopic lens. Study I: The tip of the colonoscope was immersed in lard oil in order to simulate the blur, and photographs were taken toward a standard colonoscopy image in-vitro pre- and post- each cleansing procedure. The blurred areas of each image were quantified and compared. Study II: 395 consecutive patients who were due to colonoscopy examination were enrolled and randomized into O-, S2-, D-group. The volume of washing solution used and cleansing level during the examination procedure, adenoma and polyp detected per colonoscopy, insertion time and withdraw time were analyzed.ResultsStudy I: There were no differences in 4 groups for the blurred areas on images before lens cleansing. The blurred areas after lens cleansing were significantly smaller in 3 groups (O- 8.47 ± 20.91 vs S1- 13.06 ± 10.71 vs S2- 6.76 ± 8.49 vs D- 38.24 ± 29.69, P < .05) than water. The decline range of blurred areas after lens cleansing in oolong tea, low concentration simethicone solution, high concentration simethicone solution groups were significantly higher than that in distilled water group (O- 87.35 ± 20.81 vs S1- 78.12 ± 19.24 vs S2- 89.57 ± 8.50 vs D- 53.39 ± 28.45, P < .05). Study II: The volume of washing solution used in S2-group was significantly smaller than that in O-group and D-group. The cleansing level of the colonoscopic lens of O-group was significantly superior than that of S2-group and D-group.ConclusionsThe in-vitro test showed oolong tea and simethicone solution can effectively cleans the colonoscopic lens. The clinical trial demonstrated that oolong tea instead of water is effective to provide better visualization during colonoscopy.Registration: Chictr.org.cn No: ChiCTR1900025606.

Project description:ImportanceVoretigene neparvovec-rzyl, the first gene therapy approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, was approved for the treatment for RPE65-mediated inherited retinal disease (IRD) in December 2017. This gene therapy is associated with high up-front costs and high efficacy, although of unknown duration, and its cost-effectiveness has not been assessed with RPE65 IRD-specific, longitudinal, patient-observation-level data.ObjectiveTo assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of voretigene neparvovec-rzyl compared with standard care for RPE65-mediated inherited retinal disease.Design, setting, and participantsIn this economic analysis, a health state transition model based on visual acuity and field with a lifetime horizon was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of voretigene neparvovec-rzyl. The model was populated with data from a clinical trial of voretigene neparvovec-rzyl to evaluate treatment outcome and a natural history study of RPE65-mediated IRD to examine disease progression. Direct costs were derived from the literature. Indirect costs, including educational attainment, productivity, caregiver burden, and governmental programs, were estimated using published literature and data analysis of public national surveys. A health utility vignette study specific to RPE65-mediated IRD was used for health utility inputs. The cost-effectiveness study described in this article was conducted from September 15, 2017, to August 23, 2018.ExposuresBilateral voretigene neparvovec-rzyl therapy or standard care.Main outcomes and measuresIncremental cost-effectiveness ratio.ResultsThe model population included 70 patients with RPE65-mediated IRD, with a mean age of 15 years; 42 of 70 patients (60%) were female. In the base case, voretigene neparvovec-rzyl compared with standard care was associated with lower total costs ($2.2 million vs $2.8 million) and higher quality-adjusted life-years (18.1 vs 8.6). Voretigene neparvovec-rzyl remains cost-effective if at least 8.8% of the long-term treatment effect continues after year 3 when including indirect costs and 43.3% when excluding indirect costs, assuming a cost threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year.Conclusions and relevanceResults of this study suggest that voretigene neparvovec-rzyl is cost-effective compared with standard care when using a lifetime horizon, excluding indirect costs, and using a threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

Project description:IntroductionSarcoidosis is a multisystem, inflammatory, systemic granulomatous disease with unknown etiology. Despite the current standard of care (SoC), there is an unmet need for the treatment of advanced symptomatic sarcoidosis. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of Acthar® Gel (repository corticotropin injection) versus SoC in patients with advanced symptomatic sarcoidosis from the United States (US) payer and societal perspectives over 2 and 3 years.MethodsA probabilistic cohort-level state-transition approach was used for this cost-effectiveness analysis. Patients were monitored at the end of a 3-month cycle for the attainment of partial or complete response. Patients in the partial, complete, or no-response state were allowed to transition in each of these states at each 3-month cycle. Following the attainment of response, patients could have a durable response or relapse to a no-response state. Patients in a no-response state received treatment and could transition into a response or no-response state based on the probability of treatment success with the respective treatment. Clinical parameters and health utility data were sourced from the Acthar Gel in Participants with Pulmonary Sarcoidosis (PULSAR) trial (NCT03320070) and healthcare utilization, costs, and disutilities were sourced from the published literature. Base case analysis considered a payer perspective over 2 years.ResultsFrom a payer perspective, Acthar Gel versus SoC results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $134,796 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and $39,179 per QALY over 2 and 3 years, respectively. From a societal perspective, Acthar Gel versus SoC results in an ICER of $117,622 per QALY and $21,967 per QALY over 2 and 3 years, respectively. Sensitivity analysis findings were consistent with the base case.ConclusionThe results from this cost-effectiveness analysis indicate that Acthar Gel is a cost-effective, value-based treatment option for advanced symptomatic sarcoidosis compared to the SoC from the US payer and societal perspectives.