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:In the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), adults at high risk for cardiovascular disease who received intensive systolic blood-pressure control (target, <120 mm Hg) had significantly lower rates of death and cardiovascular disease events than did those who received standard control (target, <140 mm Hg). On the basis of these data, we wanted to determine the lifetime health benefits and health care costs associated with intensive control versus standard control.We used a microsimulation model to apply SPRINT treatment effects and health care costs from national sources to a hypothetical cohort of SPRINT-eligible adults. The model projected lifetime costs of treatment and monitoring in patients with hypertension, cardiovascular disease events and subsequent treatment costs, treatment-related risks of serious adverse events and subsequent costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for intensive control versus standard control of systolic blood pressure.We determined that the mean number of QALYs would be 0.27 higher among patients who received intensive control than among those who received standard control and would cost approximately $47,000 more per QALY gained if there were a reduction in adherence and treatment effects after 5 years; the cost would be approximately $28,000 more per QALY gained if the treatment effects persisted for the remaining lifetime of the patient. Most simulation results indicated that intensive treatment would be cost-effective (51 to 79% below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY and 76 to 93% below the threshold of $100,000 per QALY), regardless of whether treatment effects were reduced after 5 years or persisted for the remaining lifetime.In this simulation study, intensive systolic blood-pressure control prevented cardiovascular disease events and prolonged life and did so at levels below common willingness-to-pay thresholds per QALY, regardless of whether benefits were reduced after 5 years or persisted for the patient's remaining lifetime. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; SPRINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062 .).