Nurse-led follow-up at home vs. conventional medical outpatient clinic follow-up in patients with incurable upper gastrointestinal cancer: a randomized study.

CONTEXT: Upper gastrointestinal cancer is associated with a poor prognosis. The multidimensional problems of incurable patients require close monitoring and frequent support, which cannot sufficiently be provided during conventional one to two month follow-up visits to the outpatient clinic. OBJECTIVES: To compare nurse-led follow-up at home with conventional medical follow-up in the outpatient clinic for patients with incurable primary or recurrent esophageal, pancreatic, or hepatobiliary cancer. METHODS: Patients were randomized to nurse-led follow-up at home or conventional medical follow-up in the outpatient clinic. Outcome parameters were quality of life (QoL), patient satisfaction, and health care consumption, measured by different questionnaires at one and a half and four months after randomization. As well, cost analyses were done for both follow-up strategies in the first four months. RESULTS: In total, 138 patients were randomized, of which 66 (48%) were evaluable. At baseline, both groups were similar with respect to clinical and sociodemographic characteristics and health-related QoL. Patients in the nurse-led follow-up group were significantly more satisfied with the visits, whereas QoL and health care consumption within the first four months were comparable between the two groups. Nurse-led follow-up was less expensive than conventional medical follow-up. However, the total costs for the first four months of follow-up in this study were higher in the nurse-led follow-up group because of a higher frequency of visits. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that conventional medical follow-up is interchangeable with nurse-led follow-up. A cost utility study is necessary to determine the preferred frequency and duration of the home visits.

Colorectal cancer screening comparing no screening, immunochemical and guaiac fecal occult blood tests: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Comparability of cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies is limited if heterogeneous study data are combined. We analyzed prospective empirical data from a randomized-controlled trial to compare cost-effectiveness of screening with either one round of immunochemical fecal occult blood testing (I-FOBT; OC-Sensor®), one round of guaiac FOBT (G-FOBT; Hemoccult-II®) or no screening in Dutch aged 50 to 75 years, completed with cancer registry and literature data, from a third-party payer perspective in a Markov model with first- and second-order Monte Carlo simulation. Costs were measured in Euros (€), effects in life-years gained, and both were discounted with 3%. Uncertainty surrounding important parameters was analyzed. I-FOBT dominated the alternatives: after one round of I-FOBT screening, a hypothetical person would on average gain 0.003 life-years and save the health care system €27 compared with G-FOBT and 0.003 life years and €72 compared with no screening. Overall, in 4,460,265 Dutch aged 50-75 years, after one round I-FOBT screening, 13,400 life-years and €320 million would have been saved compared with no screening. I-FOBT also dominated in sensitivity analyses, varying uncertainty surrounding important effect and cost parameters. CRC screening with I-FOBT dominated G-FOBT and no screening with or without accounting for uncertainty.

Effect and cost-effectiveness of step-up versus step-down treatment with antacids, H2-receptor antagonists, and proton pump inhibitors in patients with new onset dyspepsia (DIAMOND study): a primary-care-based randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Substantial physician workload and high costs are associated with the treatment of dyspepsia in primary health care. Despite the availability of consensus statements and guidelines, the most cost-effective empirical strategy for initial management of the condition remains to be determined. We compared step-up and step-down treatment strategies for initial management of patients with new onset dyspepsia in primary care. METHODS: Patients aged 18 years and older who consulted with their family doctor for new onset dyspepsia in the Netherlands were eligible for enrolment in this double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Between October, 2003, and January, 2006, 664 patients were randomly assigned to receive stepwise treatment with antacid, H(2)-receptor antagonist, and proton pump inhibitor (step-up; n=341), or these drugs in the reverse order (step-down; n=323), by use of a computer-generated sequence with blocks of six. Each step lasted 4 weeks and treatment only continued with the next step if symptoms persisted or relapsed within 4 weeks. Primary outcomes were symptom relief and cost-effectiveness of initial management at 6 months. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT); the ITT population consisted of all patients with data for the primary outcome at 6 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00247715. FINDINGS: 332 patients in the step-up, and 313 in the step-down group reached an endpoint with sufficient data for evaluation; the main reason for dropout was loss to follow-up. Treatment success after 6 months was achieved in 238 (72%) patients in the step-up group and 219 (70%) patients in the step-down group (odds ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.7-1.3). The average medical costs were lower for patients in the step-up group than for those in the step-down group (euro228 vs euro245; p=0.0008), which was mainly because of costs of medication. One or more adverse drug events were reported by 94 (28%) patients in the step-up and 93 (29%) patients in the step-down group. All were minor events, including (other) dyspeptic symptoms, diarrhoea, constipation, and bad/dry taste. INTERPRETATION: Although treatment success with either step-up or step-down treatment is similar, the step-up strategy is more cost effective at 6 months for initial treatment of patients with new onset dyspeptic symptoms in primary care.