Comparison of Cap-Assisted vs Conventional Endoscopic Technique for Management of Food Bolus Impaction in the Esophagus: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: "Push" or "pull" techniques with the use of snares, forceps, baskets, and grasping devices are conventionally used to manage esophageal food bolus impaction (FBI). A novel cap-assisted technique has recently been advocated to reduce time taken for food bolus (FB) removal. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the cap-assisted technique against conventional methods of esophageal FB removal in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Consecutive patients with esophageal FBI requiring endoscopic removal, from 3 Australian tertiary hospitals between 2017 and 2019, were randomized to either the cap-assisted technique or the conventional technique. Primary outcomes were technical success and FB retrieval time. Secondary outcomes were technical success rate, en bloc removal rate, procedure-related complication, length of hospital stay, and cost of consumables. RESULTS: Over 24 months, 342 patients with esophageal FBI were randomized to a cap-assisted (n = 171) or conventional (n = 171) technique. Compared with the conventional approach, the cap-assisted technique was associated with (i) shorter FB retrieval time (4.5 ± 0.5 minutes vs 21.7 ± 0.9 minutes, P < 0.001), (ii) shorter total procedure time (23.0 ± 0.6 minutes vs 47.0 ± 1.3 minutes, P < 0.0001), (iii) higher technical success rate (170/171 vs 160/171, P < 0.001), (iv) higher rate of en bloc removal (159/171 vs 48/171, P < 0.001), and (v) lower rate of procedure-related mucosal tear and bleeding (0/171 vs 13/171, P < 0.001). There were no major adverse events or deaths within 30 days in either group. The total cost of consumables was higher in the conventional group (A$19,644.90 vs A$6,239.90). DISCUSSION: This multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed that the cap-assisted technique is more effective and less costly than the conventional approach and should be first-line treatment for esophageal FBI.

Cost effectiveness of treatment models of care for hepatitis C: the South Australian state-wide experience.

AIM: The objective was to study the long-term (lifetime) cost effectiveness of four different hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment models of care (MOC) with directly acting antiviral drugs. METHODS: A cohort Markov model-based probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was undertaken extrapolating to up to 30 years from cost and outcome data collected from a primary study involving a real-life Australian cohort. In this study, noncirrhotic patients treated for HCV from 1 March 2016 to 28 February 2017 at four major public hospitals and liaising sites in South Australia were studied retrospectively. The MOC were classified depending on the person providing patient workup, treatment and monitoring into MOC1 (specialist), MOC2 (mixed specialist and hepatitis nurse), MOC3 (hepatitis nurse) and MOC4 (general practitioner, GP). Incremental costs were estimated from the Medicare perspective. Incremental outcomes were estimated based on the quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained by achieving a sustained virological response. A cost-effectiveness threshold of Australian dollar 50 000 per QALY gained, the implicit criterion used for assessing the cost-effectiveness of new pharmaceuticals and medical services in Australia was assumed. Net monetary benefit (NMB) estimates based on this threshold were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 1373 patients, 64% males, mean age 50 (SD ±11) years, were studied. In the CEA, MOC4 and MOC2 clearly dominated MOC1 over 30 years with lower costs and higher QALYs. Similarly, NMB was the highest in MOC4, followed by MOC2. CONCLUSION: Decentralized care using GP and mixed consultant nurse models were cost-effective ways of promoting HCV treatment uptake in the setting of unrestricted access to new antivirals.