Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of long-term management strategies for heartburn.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the expected costs and outcomes of seven alternative long-term primary care strategies for the management of patients with moderate-to-severe heartburn over a 1-year period. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to estimate costs and effects (weeks with heartburn symptoms and quality adjusted life years [QALYs]) for each strategy. Meta-analyses were used to synthesize acute treatment and maintenance studies and physician surveys to collect information on patient management. The impact of uncertainty on the base case results was assessed using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Probability distributions were defined for key model parameters and techniques of Monte Carlo simulation were used to draw values from these distributions. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) conditional on the monetary value decision makers are willing to pay for a symptom-free day or QALY were created for each strategy. RESULTS: In the base case, no strategy was strictly dominated by any other strategy. However, two strategies (maintenance H2-receptor antagonists H2RA] and step-down proton pump inhibitor PPI]) were dominated through principles of extended dominance. The least costly and least effective strategy was intermittent H2RA, while maintenance PPI was the most costly and most effective. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis showed that the best way of managing patients with heartburn depends on how much society is willing to pay to achieve health improvements. Based on the commonly quoted threshold of US 50,000 dollars per QALY, the optimal primary care strategy for managing patients with moderate-to-severe heartburn symptoms is to treat the symptoms with a PPI followed by maintenance therapy with an H2RA to prevent symptomatic recurrence.

Use and misuse of cost-effectiveness terminology in the gastroenterology literature: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The increased popularity of economic analyses for evaluating medical interventions has given rise to concern about the rigor with which economic constructs and terminology are used. True cost-effectiveness analysis considers both the costs and outcomes of alternative interventions. A systematic review of the gastroenterology literature was undertaken to evaluate how appropriately cost-effectiveness is assessed. METHODS: A structured MEDLINE search identified all studies published in major gastroenterology journals between 1980 and 1998 that claimed in their abstracts to have assessed the cost-effectiveness of an intervention. Blinded copies of eligible studies were assessed by two independent reviewers who used standard criteria to evaluate the use of economic terminology and key economic constructs. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Studies met a "broad criterion" for appropriateness by evaluating both costs and effects and a "strict criterion" by demonstrating dominance of one strategy or considering both incremental costs and incremental effects. RESULTS: Of 110 eligible studies, 77 (70.0%) met the broad criterion and 62 (56.4%) met the strict criterion for appropriateness. This did not seem to vary with either journal impact factor or publication year. Only eight of 18 studies reporting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared its value to an external standard. Few studies explicitly stated their analytic perspective, and a minority of those with time horizons longer than 1 yr had discounted future costs or effects. CONCLUSIONS: Although most studies seem to use cost-effectiveness terminology well, there remains room to improve the rigor with which economic terminology and constructs are applied.