Cost-effective identification of Barrett's esophagus in the community: A first step towards screening.

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Tomonori Aoki, David I Watson, Norma B Bulamu
{"title":"Cost-effective identification of Barrett's esophagus in the community: A first step towards screening.","authors":"Tomonori Aoki, David I Watson, Norma B Bulamu","doi":"10.1111/jgh.16762","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aim: </strong>The first step towards developing a screening strategy for Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the identification of individuals in the community. Currently available tools include endoscopy, less-invasive non-endoscopic devices, and non-invasive risk stratification models. We evaluated the cost of potential strategies for identification of BE as a first step towards screening.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two hypothetical cohorts of the general population aged ≥ 50 years with BE prevalence rates of 1.9% and 6.8% were modeled. Four potential screening tools were evaluated: (i) risk stratification based on non-weighted clinical factors according to US/European guidelines, (ii) weighted risk stratification using algorithmic models, (iii) less-invasive devices such as Cytosponge + trefoil factor 3 (TFF3), and (iv) endoscopy. Using a decision-analytic model, the cost per BE case identified and the cost-effectiveness were compared for six potential BE screening strategies based on combinations of the four screening tools; (i) + (iv), (ii) + (iv), (iii) + (iv), (i) + (iii) + (iv), (ii) + (iii) + (iv), and only (iv).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cost per BE case identified was lowest for the weighted risk stratification followed by Cytosponge-TFF3 then endoscopy strategy at both 1.9% and 6.8% BE prevalences (US$9282 and US$3406, respectively) although it was sensitive to the cost of less-invasive devices. This strategy was also most cost-effective for a BE prevalence of 1.9%. At BE prevalence of 6.8%, the Cytosponge-TFF3 followed by endoscopy strategy was most cost-effective.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Incorporating weighted risk stratification and less-invasive devices such as Cytosponge-TFF3 into BE screening strategies has a potential to cost-effectively identify BE in the community although device cost and the community prevalence of BE will impact the optimal strategy.</p>","PeriodicalId":15877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.16762","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aim: The first step towards developing a screening strategy for Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the identification of individuals in the community. Currently available tools include endoscopy, less-invasive non-endoscopic devices, and non-invasive risk stratification models. We evaluated the cost of potential strategies for identification of BE as a first step towards screening.

Methods: Two hypothetical cohorts of the general population aged ≥ 50 years with BE prevalence rates of 1.9% and 6.8% were modeled. Four potential screening tools were evaluated: (i) risk stratification based on non-weighted clinical factors according to US/European guidelines, (ii) weighted risk stratification using algorithmic models, (iii) less-invasive devices such as Cytosponge + trefoil factor 3 (TFF3), and (iv) endoscopy. Using a decision-analytic model, the cost per BE case identified and the cost-effectiveness were compared for six potential BE screening strategies based on combinations of the four screening tools; (i) + (iv), (ii) + (iv), (iii) + (iv), (i) + (iii) + (iv), (ii) + (iii) + (iv), and only (iv).

Results: The cost per BE case identified was lowest for the weighted risk stratification followed by Cytosponge-TFF3 then endoscopy strategy at both 1.9% and 6.8% BE prevalences (US$9282 and US$3406, respectively) although it was sensitive to the cost of less-invasive devices. This strategy was also most cost-effective for a BE prevalence of 1.9%. At BE prevalence of 6.8%, the Cytosponge-TFF3 followed by endoscopy strategy was most cost-effective.

Conclusions: Incorporating weighted risk stratification and less-invasive devices such as Cytosponge-TFF3 into BE screening strategies has a potential to cost-effectively identify BE in the community although device cost and the community prevalence of BE will impact the optimal strategy.

在社区以具有成本效益的方式识别巴雷特食管:迈向筛查的第一步。
背景和目的:制定巴雷特食管(Barrett's esophagus,BE)筛查策略的第一步是识别社区中的个体。目前可用的工具包括内窥镜检查、侵入性较低的非内窥镜设备和非侵入性风险分层模型。作为筛查的第一步,我们评估了识别 BE 的潜在策略的成本:方法:我们对年龄≥ 50 岁、BE 患病率分别为 1.9% 和 6.8% 的普通人群中的两个假定队列进行了建模。对四种潜在筛查工具进行了评估:(i) 根据美国/欧洲指南,基于非加权临床因素进行风险分层;(ii) 使用算法模型进行加权风险分层;(iii) Cytosponge + trefoil factor 3 (TFF3) 等微创设备;(iv) 内窥镜检查。利用决策分析模型,比较了基于四种筛查工具组合的六种潜在 BE 筛查策略((i) + (iv)、(ii) + (iv)、(iii) + (iv)、(i) + (iii) + (iv)、(ii) + (iii) + (iv)、(ii) + (iii) + (iv)和仅(iv))发现每个 BE 病例的成本和成本效益:加权风险分层的每例 BE 鉴定成本最低,其次是细胞海绵-TFF3,然后是内窥镜检查策略,BE 患病率分别为 1.9% 和 6.8%(分别为 9 282 美元和 3 406 美元),尽管它对微创设备的成本很敏感。在 BE 发病率为 1.9% 的情况下,该策略也最具成本效益。当 BE 感染率为 6.8% 时,Cytosponge-TFF3 和内窥镜检查策略最具成本效益:将加权风险分层和 Cytosponge-TFF3 等侵入性较低的设备纳入 BE 筛查策略,有可能在社区以具有成本效益的方式识别 BE,尽管设备成本和社区 BE 的流行率会影响最佳策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
2.40%
发文量
326
审稿时长
2.3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology is produced 12 times per year and publishes peer-reviewed original papers, reviews and editorials concerned with clinical practice and research in the fields of hepatology, gastroenterology and endoscopy. Papers cover the medical, radiological, pathological, biochemical, physiological and historical aspects of the subject areas. All submitted papers are reviewed by at least two referees expert in the field of the submitted paper.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信