TY - JOUR
T1 - Endosheath ultrathin transnasal endoscopy is a cost-effective method for screening for Barrett's esophagus in patients with GERD symptoms
AU - Honing, Judith
AU - Kievit, Wietske
AU - Bookelaar, Jan
AU - Peters, Yonne
AU - Iyer, Prasad G.
AU - Siersema, Peter D.
N1 - Funding Information:
DISCLOSURE: P. Iyer received research grants from Exact Sciences, Intromedic, and C2 Therapeutics, for which he serves on the advisory board. P. Siersema received research support from EndoStim U.S.A., Ella-CS Czech Republic, Yakult Japan, Pentax Japan, and Motus GI Israel, for which he does consulting. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
PY - 2019/4
Y1 - 2019/4
N2 - Background and Aims: Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening is currently not considered to be cost effective in the general population but may be effective in high-risk subgroups, such as 50-year-old white men with chronic reflux disease (GERD). A new modality for screening is unsedated transnasal endoscopy using endosheath technology (uTNE), which has been shown to be safe and effective in clinical practice. In this study, we determined the cost-utility of uTNE in a high-risk subgroup compared with no screening or screening with standard endoscopy. Methods: A Markov model was used to simulate screening of 50-year-old white men with symptoms of GERD with either uTNE or standard endoscopy compared with no screening, over a lifetime horizon. Input variables were based on the literature and recent data on uTNE screening for BE. The study was designed from a healthcare payer perspective by using direct costs. Primary outcome measures were costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of uTNE and standard endoscopy compared with no screening. Sensitivity analysis was performed for several factors, such as prevalence of BE. Results: Costs of uTNE, standard endoscopy, and no screening were estimated at, $2495, $2957, and $1436, respectively. Compared with no screening, uTNE screening resulted in an overall QALY increase of 0.039 (95% percentile 0.018; 0.063) and an ICUR of $29,446 per QALY gained (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.516-53.091), whereas standard endoscopy compared with no screening resulted in a QALY increase of 0.034 (95% CI, 0.015-0.056) and an ICUR of $47,563 (95% CI, 31,036-82,970). Conclusion: Both uTNE and standard endoscopy seem to be cost-effective screening methods in a screening cohort of 50-year-old white men with GERD at a willingness-to-pay cutoff of $50,000.
AB - Background and Aims: Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening is currently not considered to be cost effective in the general population but may be effective in high-risk subgroups, such as 50-year-old white men with chronic reflux disease (GERD). A new modality for screening is unsedated transnasal endoscopy using endosheath technology (uTNE), which has been shown to be safe and effective in clinical practice. In this study, we determined the cost-utility of uTNE in a high-risk subgroup compared with no screening or screening with standard endoscopy. Methods: A Markov model was used to simulate screening of 50-year-old white men with symptoms of GERD with either uTNE or standard endoscopy compared with no screening, over a lifetime horizon. Input variables were based on the literature and recent data on uTNE screening for BE. The study was designed from a healthcare payer perspective by using direct costs. Primary outcome measures were costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of uTNE and standard endoscopy compared with no screening. Sensitivity analysis was performed for several factors, such as prevalence of BE. Results: Costs of uTNE, standard endoscopy, and no screening were estimated at, $2495, $2957, and $1436, respectively. Compared with no screening, uTNE screening resulted in an overall QALY increase of 0.039 (95% percentile 0.018; 0.063) and an ICUR of $29,446 per QALY gained (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.516-53.091), whereas standard endoscopy compared with no screening resulted in a QALY increase of 0.034 (95% CI, 0.015-0.056) and an ICUR of $47,563 (95% CI, 31,036-82,970). Conclusion: Both uTNE and standard endoscopy seem to be cost-effective screening methods in a screening cohort of 50-year-old white men with GERD at a willingness-to-pay cutoff of $50,000.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059853900&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85059853900&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2018.10.024
DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2018.10.024
M3 - Article
C2 - 30385112
AN - SCOPUS:85059853900
SN - 0016-5107
VL - 89
SP - 712-722.e3
JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
IS - 4
ER -