Hemorrhoid Banding: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hemorrhoid banding is an established treatment for symptomatic internal hemorrhoids with proven efficacy, low cost, and limited discomfort. Although the costs and quality of life following individual banding treatments have been investigated, little is known about cumulative cost and quality of life from sequential banding therapy or how these cumulative costs compare to surgical therapy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of sequential hemorrhoid banding therapy. DESIGN: A retrospective review of historic banding treatment patterns was performed. Cost estimates and quality-of-life predictions were applied to observed treatment patterns in a decision-analytic cost-effectiveness model to compare sequential banding therapy with hypothetical surgical intervention. SETTING: A retrospective billing record review for patients treated in a colorectal specialty clinic between 2012 and 2017 was performed. PATIENTS: Patients initially treated with banding therapy for symptomatic internal hemorrhoids were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcomes measured were hemorrhoid banding treatment patterns, cost-effectiveness, and net monetary benefit. RESULTS: Treatment of 2026 patients undergoing hemorrhoid banding identified 94% resolution with sequential banding and 6% requiring delayed surgical intervention. Average cumulative estimated cost for banding therapy was $723 (range, $382-$4430) per patient with an average quality-of-life deficit of -0.00234 (range, -0.00064 to -0.02638) quality-adjusted life-years. Estimates for hypothetical hemorrhoid artery ligation, stapled hemorrhoidopexy, or surgical hemorrhoidectomy found significantly higher cost (3.15×, 4.39×, and 2.75× more expensive) and a significantly worse quality-of-life deficit (1.55×, 5.64×, and 9.45× worse). For patients with persistent disease, continued sequential banding remained the dominant cost-effective therapy. LIMITATIONS: This cost-effectiveness model relies on a retrospective review of billing records with estimated cost and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Hemorrhoid banding is a valuable treatment modality with favorable cost-effectiveness. The majority of patients selected for banding find resolution without surgery. For patients with persistent disease, further banding procedures remain cost-effective compared with delayed surgical therapy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A982. BANDA HEMORROIDAL: UN ANÁLISIS DE COSTO-EFECTIVIDAD: La banda para hemorroides es un tratamiento establecido para las hemorroides internas sintomáticas con eficacia comprobada, bajo costo y malestar limitado. Si bien se han investigado los costos y la calidad de vida después de los tratamientos de bandas individuales, se sabe poco sobre el costo acumulativo y la calidad de vida de la terapia de bandas secuencial o cómo estos costos acumulativos se comparan con la terapia quirúrgica. OBJETIVO: Determinar el costo-efectividad de la terapia secuencial de bandas hemorroidales. DISEÑO:: Se realizó una revisión retrospectiva de la historia de los patrones de tratamiento con bandas. Las estimaciones de costos y las predicciones de la calidad de vida se aplicaron a los patrones de tratamiento observados en un modelo analítico de costo-efectividad para comparar la terapia de bandas secuencial con la intervención quirúrgica hipotética. AJUSTE: Revisión retrospectiva de los registros de facturación de los pacientes tratados en una clínica de especialidad colorrectal entre 2012 y 2017. PACIENTES: Pacientes tratados inicialmente con terapia de bandas para hemorroides internas sintomáticas. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Patrones de tratamiento con bandas de hemorroides, costo-efectividad y beneficio monetario neto. RESULTADOS: El tratamiento de 2026 pacientes con bandas identificó una resolución del 94% con bandas secuenciales y el 6% requirió una intervención quirúrgica tardía. El costo promedio acumulado estimado para la terapia de banda fue de $ 723 (Rango: $382-$4430) por paciente con un déficit de calidad de vida promedio de -0.00234 (Rango: -0.00064 a -0.02638) años de vida ajustados por calidad. Las estimaciones para la hipotética ligadura de la arteria hemorroidal, la hemorroidopexia con grapas o la hemorroidectomía quirúrgica encontraron un costo significativamente mayor (3.15×, 4.39×, 2.75× más caro) y un déficit de la calidad de vida significativamente peor (1.55×, 5.64×, 9.45× peor). Para los pacientes con enfermedad persistente, la colocación de bandas secuenciales continuas siguió siendo la terapia rentable dominante. LIMITACIONES: Este modelo de costo-efectividad se basa en una revisión retrospectiva de los registros de facturación con el costo y la calidad de vida estimados. CONCLUSIONES: Las bandas de hemorroides son una valiosa modalidad de tratamiento con una favorable relación costo-efectividad. La mayoría de los pacientes seleccionados para terapia con bandas encuentran resolución sin cirugía. Para los pacientes con enfermedad persistente, los procedimientos de colocación de bandas adicionales siguen siendo rentables en comparación con el tratamiento quirúrgico tardío. Vea el Resumen del video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/A982.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy Followed by Radical Resection Versus Conventional Therapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Definitive surgery with total mesorectal excision is the mainstay of treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. Multimodality therapy improves long-term survival. Current standards advise neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by radical surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Nationally, compliance with adjuvant chemotherapy is only 32%. New research evaluates the effectiveness of total neoadjuvant therapy: complete chemotherapy and chemoradiation before surgery. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to determine the favored treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer by comparing the cost-effectiveness of total neoadjuvant therapy and the current standard of care. DESIGN: Decision analytical modeling using long-term costs and 5-year disease-free survival was performed to determine the cost-effectiveness after total neoadjuvant therapy and the current standard of care. Sensitivity analysis was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in model parameters. SETTINGS: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services billing data perspective was adopted and outcomes modeled according to local and national databases and literature consensus. PATIENTS: Adult patients with stage II or III rectal cancer were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness in disease-free life-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net monetary benefit were determined over a 5-year posttreatment period. The favored strategy was determined based on cost-effectiveness and sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness for total neoadjuvant therapy was 40,708 $/life-year, and, for conventional therapy, cost-effectiveness was 44,248 $/life-year. Sensitivity analysis showed that, for an estimated total neoadjuvant therapy completion rate of 90%, total neoadjuvant therapy would remain the dominant strategy for any adjuvant chemotherapy completion rate of less than 93%. LIMITATIONS: The samples used to calculate completion rates are small, and survival probabilities are based on existing literature, local database values, and consensus estimates. The model encompasses a 5-year time period from diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness analysis shows that a strategy of total neoadjuvant therapy followed by radical surgery is favored over the current standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer. Sensitivity analysis shows that a low rate of adjuvant chemotherapy administration plays a key role in decreasing the cost-effectiveness of the current standard of care. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A942.