RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Colonoscopic surveillance for neoplasia is recommended for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-related colitis. However, data on cost-effectiveness predate current international guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To compare cost-effectiveness based on contemporary data between the surveillance strategies of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) and British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG). DESIGN: We constructed a Markov decision model to simulate the clinical course of IBD patients. SETTING: We compared the 2 surveillance strategies for a base case of a 40-year-old colitis patient who was followed for 40 years. PATIENTS: AGA surveillance distinguishes 2 groups: a high-risk group with annual surveillance and an average-risk group with biannual surveillance. BSG surveillance distinguishes 3 risk groups with yearly, 3-year, or 5-year surveillance. INTERVENTIONS: Patients could move from a no-dysplasia state with colonoscopic surveillance to 1 of 3 states for which proctocolectomy was indicated: (1) dysplasia/local cancer, (2) regional/metastasized cancer, or (3) refractory disease. After proctocolectomy, a patient moved to a no-colon state without surveillance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Direct costs of medical care, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: BSG surveillance dominated AGA surveillance with $9846 per QALY. Both strategies were equally effective with 24.16 QALYs, but BSG surveillance was associated with lower costs because of fewer colonoscopies performed. Costs related to IBD, surgery, or cancer did not affect cost-effectiveness. LIMITATIONS: The model depends on the accuracy of derived data, and the assumptions that were made to reflect real-life situations. Study conclusions may only apply to the U.S. health care system. CONCLUSION: The updated risk-profiling approach for surveillance of IBD colorectal carcinoma by the BSG guideline appears to be more cost-effective.
