Colonoscopy in poorly prepped colons: a cost effectiveness analysis comparing standard of care to a new cleansing technology.
Ontology highlight
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
Similar Datasets
Project description:New medical technology is expensive and we are introducing it in services in an unplanned manner. A significant proportion of our resources are wasted through inefficiency in the selection and production of health care strategies. We should choose new technologies which are 'need based' and 'cost effective'.
| S-EPMC5530383 | biostudies-other
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.
| S-EPMC8341282 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of induction and maintenance treatment up to 1 year of ulcerative colitis with golimumab/standard care and standard care alone in Poland.MethodsA Markov model was used to estimate the expected costs and effects of golimumab/standard care and a standard care alone. For each treatment option the costs and quality adjusted life years were calculated to estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio. The analysis was performed from the perspective of the Polish public payer and society over a 30-years time horizon. The clinical parameters were derived mainly from the PURSUIT-SC and PURSUIT-M clinical trials. Different direct and indirect costs and utility values were assigned to the various model health states.ResultsThe treatment of ulcerative colitis patients with golimumab/standard care instead of a standard care alone resulted in 0.122 additional years of life with full health. The treatment with golimumab/standard care was found to be more expensive than treatment with the standard care alone from the public payer perspective and from social perspective. The incremental cost-utility ratio of golimumab/standard care compared to the standard care alone is estimated to be 391,252 PLN/QALY gained (93,155 €/QALYG) from public payer perspective and 374,377 PLN/QALY gained (89,137 €/QALYG) from social perspective.ConclusionsThe biologic treatment of ulcerative colitis patients with golimumab/standard care is more effective but also more costly compared with standard care alone.
| S-EPMC4975491 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Potential cost and effectiveness of a nephrologist/nurse-based multifaceted intervention for stage 3 to 4 chronic kidney disease are not known. This study examines the cost-effectiveness of a chronic disease management model for chronic kidney disease.Cost and cost-effectiveness were prospectively gathered alongside a multicenter trial. The Canadian Prevention of Renal and Cardiovascular Endpoints Trial (CanPREVENT) randomized 236 patients to receive usual care (controls) and another 238 patients to multifaceted nurse/nephrologist-supported care that targeted factors associated with development of kidney and cardiovascular disease (intervention). Cost and outcomes over 2 years were examined to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Base-case analysis included disease-related costs, and sensitivity analysis included all costs.Consideration of all costs produced statistically significant differences. A lower number of days in hospital explained most of the cost difference. For both base-case and sensitivity analyses with all costs included, the intervention group required fewer resources and had higher quality of life. The direction of the results was unchanged to inclusion of various types of costs, consideration of payer or societal perspective, changes to the discount rate, and levels of GFR.The nephrologist/nurse-based multifaceted intervention represents good value for money because it reduces costs without reducing quality of life for patients with chronic kidney disease.
| S-EPMC3109919 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6646972 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundComputerized tomographic (CT) colonography is a potential alternative to colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Its main advantage, a better safety profile, may be offset by its limitations: lower sensitivity, need for colonoscopy in cases where results are positive, and expense.MethodsWe performed an economic evaluation, using decision analysis, to compare CT colonography with colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in patients over 50 years of age. Three-year outcomes included number of colonoscopies, perforations and adenomas removed; deaths from perforation and from colorectal cancer from missed adenomas; and direct health care costs. The expected prevalence of adenomas, test performance characteristics of CT colonography and colonoscopy, and probability of colonoscopy complications and cancer from missed adenomas were derived from the literature. Costs were determined in detail locally.ResultsUsing the base-case assumptions, a strategy of CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening would cost 2.27 million dollars extra per 100,000 patients screened; 3.78 perforation-related deaths would be avoided, but 4.11 extra deaths would occur from missed adenomas. Because screening with CT colonography would cost more and result in more deaths overall compared with colonoscopy, the latter remained the dominant strategy. Our results were sensitive to CT colonography's test performance characteristics, the malignant risk of missed adenomas, the risk of perforation and related death, the procedural costs and differences in screening adherence.InterpretationAt present, CT colonography cannot be recommended as a primary means of population-based colorectal cancer screening in Canada.
| S-EPMC1247700 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChildhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at increased risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) compared to the general population, especially those previously exposed to abdominal or pelvic radiation therapy (APRT). However, the benefits and costs of CRC screening in CCS are unclear. In this study, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of early-initiated colonoscopy screening in CCS.MethodsWe adjusted a previously validated model of CRC screening in the US population (MISCAN-Colon) to reflect CRC and other-cause mortality risk in CCS. We evaluated 91 colonoscopy screening strategies varying in screening interval, age to start, and age to stop screening for all CCS combined and for those treated with or without APRT. Primary outcomes were CRC deaths averted (compared to no screening) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per life-years gained (LYG) was used to determine the optimal screening strategy.ResultsCompared to no screening, the US Preventive Services Task Force's average risk screening schedule prevented up to 73.2% of CRC deaths in CCS. The optimal strategy of screening every 10 years from age 40 to 60 years averted 79.2% of deaths, with ICER of $67 000/LYG. Among CCS treated with APRT, colonoscopy every 10 years from age 35 to 65 years was optimal (CRC deaths averted: 82.3%; ICER: $92 000/LYG), whereas among those not previously treated with APRT, screening from age 45 to 55 years every 10 years was optimal (CRC deaths averted: 72.7%; ICER: $57 000/LYG).ConclusionsEarly initiation of colonoscopy screening for CCS is cost-effective, especially among those treated with APRT.
| S-EPMC6855986 | biostudies-literature
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 .).
| S-EPMC5708850 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsWarfarin, a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), has been the standard of care for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Aspirin is recommended for low-risk patients and those unsuitable for warfarin. Apixaban is an oral anticoagulant that has demonstrated better efficacy than warfarin and aspirin in the ARISTOTLE and AVERROES studies, respectively, and causes less bleeding than warfarin. We evaluated the potential cost-effectiveness of apixaban against warfarin and aspirin from the perspective of the UK payer perspective.Results and methodsA lifetime Markov model was developed to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic impact of apixaban compared with warfarin and aspirin in VKA suitable and VKA unsuitable patients, respectively. Clinical events considered in the model include ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic stroke, intracranial haemorrhage, other major bleed, clinically relevant non-major bleed, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular hospitalization and treatment discontinuations; data from the ARISTOTLE and AVERROES trials and published mortality rates and event-related utility rates were used in the model. Apixaban was projected to increase life expectancy and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with warfarin and aspirin. These gains were expected to be achieved at a drug acquisition-related cost increase over lifetime. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £11 909 and £7196 per QALY gained with apixaban compared with warfarin and aspirin, respectively. Sensitivity analyses indicated that results were robust to a wide range of inputs.ConclusionsBased on randomized trial data, apixaban is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin and aspirin, in VKA suitable and VKA unsuitable patients with AF, respectively.
| S-EPMC4104492 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsMidostaurin (MIDO) has been proposed for the treatment of newly-diagnosed adult patients with FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 mutation-positive (FLT3+) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in combination with standard chemotherapy. The cost-effectiveness of MIDO and standard of care (SOC) followed by MIDO monotherapy was compared to SOC alone for newly-diagnosed FLT3+?AML in the UK.MethodsA partitioned survival model was developed from a UK public healthcare system perspective to compare the cost-effectiveness of MIDO plus SOC and SOC over a lifetime horizon. The model included the following health states/partitions: induction, consolidation, monotherapy, complete remission (CR), relapse, stem cell transplantation (SCT), SCT recovery, and post-SCT recovery. Data on CR, overall survival, and adverse events were obtained from a Phase III clinical trial. Overall survival was extrapolated beyond the trial horizon using a 'cure model' approach and data from the Office for National Statistics. Utilities were identified via a systematic review. Routine care utilization was obtained from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence single technology appraisal for azacitidine in AML (TA399). The costs of drugs and administration, adverse events, hospitalizations, physician visits, and end-of-life care were incorporated.ResultsIncremental life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained by patients on MIDO and SOC versus SOC were 1.67 and 1.47, respectively. At an incremental cost of £54,072 over a lifetime horizon, the ICER was £32,465 per LY and £36,826 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were generally consistent with the base case findings.ConclusionsWith limited treatments in FLT3+?AML, MIDO represents a clinically significant advance in the management of newly-diagnosed AML. Using a threshold of £50,000 per QALY for end-of-life treatment, MIDO was shown to be a cost-effective option for newly-diagnosed FLT3+?AML.
| S-EPMC6172753 | biostudies-literature