Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori eradication triple therapy vs. conventional therapy for ulcers in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori eradication triple therapy with a combination of lansoprazole, amoxicillin and clarithromycin was approved in Japan in September 2000. AIM: To compare the cost-effectiveness of this eradication therapy with conventional histamine-2 receptor antagonist therapy in Japan. METHODS: We established two Markov models for gastric and duodenal ulcers. The model design was based on the Japanese H. pylori eradication guideline and a specialist's opinions, and the model inputs were obtained from a literature review. The models predict the direct medical costs, number of disease-free days and cost per disease-free day for 5 years. RESULTS: In the gastric ulcer model, the expected total costs of eradication and conventional therapies per patient were yen169 719 and yen390 921, respectively; the expected numbers of disease-free days were 1454 days and 1313 days, respectively. In the duodenal ulcer model, the expected total costs were yen134 786 and yen324 689, respectively; the expected numbers of disease-free days were 1503 days and 1387 days, respectively. The sensitivity analyses showed that the results of the base case analysis were robust. CONCLUSIONS: This eradication therapy is less costly and more effective than conventional therapy for the treatment of gastric and duodenal ulcers in a Japanese medical setting.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of prostate cancer screening.

To determine the optimal strategy for prostate cancer screening, the cost-effectiveness of screening was analyzed using a medical decision model. One hundred thousand asymptomatic males between the ages of 40 and 69 were modeled with and without screening. The subjects were divided into three 10-year age groups. We used a 5-year survival rate as an effectiveness point and assumed after 5 year survival free from prostate cancer. We considered three potential programs: 1) screening with digital rectal examination (DRE), 2) screening with prostate specific antigen (PSA), and 3) screening with a combination of DRE and PSA. The study was analyzed from the payer's perspective, and only direct medical costs were included. For each of the three age groups, PSA screening was more cost-effective than either DRE screening or a combination of DRE and PSA screening. The cost-effectiveness ratio for the combination of DRE and PSA screening was 1.1-2.3 times more expensive dian that of PSA screening. If the compliance rate for work-up exams is 80%, the cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening is approximate to that of gastric cancer screening. In conclusion, PSA screening is the most cost-effective strategy for prostate cancer screening when compared with both DRE and the combination of DRE and PSA screening. But prostate cancer screening should be carefully conducted, taking the cost-effectiveness of the different strategies and target groups into consideration.