{"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.
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.