Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Single-Use Duodenoscope Applied to Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography.

OBJECTIVES: Secondary infections due to transmission via the duodenoscope have been reported in up to 3% of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies. The use of single-use duodenoscopes has been suggested. We investigate the cost-effectiveness of these duodenoscopes use in cholangiopancreatography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was implemented to compare the performance of cholangiopancreatographies with reusable duodenoscopes versus single-use duodenoscopes. Effectiveness was analyzed by calculating quality-adjusted life years (QALY) from the perspective of the National Health System. Possibility of crossover from single-use to reusable duodenoscopes was considered. A willingness-to-pay of €25,000/QALY was set, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Considering cholangiopancreatographies with single-use and reusable duodenoscopes at a cost of €2900 and €1333, respectively, and a 10% rate of single-use duodenoscopes, ICER was greater than €3,000,000/QALY. A lower single-use duodenoscope cost of €1211 resulted in an ICER of €23,583/QALY. When the unit cost of the single-use duodenoscope was €1211, a crossover rate of more than 9.5% made the use of the single-use duodenoscope inefficient. CONCLUSIONS: Single-use duodenoscopes are cost-effective in a proportion of cholangiopancreatographies if its cost is reduced. Increased crossover rate makes single-use duodenoscope use not cost-effective.

Hepatitis C virus infection screening reduces mortality and is cost-effective independently of the intervention test.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic infection due to hepatitis C virus (HCV) is frequently asymptomatic even in advanced stages of liver disease. Implementation of a screening program based on different HCV tests may enable an earlier diagnosis of HCV liver disease and subsequent application of highly effective treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Markov model which compares three different screening strategies for hepatitis C versus no screening in low-risk prevalence (general population) and high-risk prevalence population (people who inject drugs or prison population) was designed, taking into account age at the start of screening and participation. The three strategies were: 1) serological detection of antibodies against the HCV, 2) dried blood spot test (DBS) to detect antibodies against HCV and 3) detection of RNA from HCV. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were taken as a measurement of effectiveness. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated and a deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: All three screening strategies were found to be cost-effective with an ICER of €13,633, €12,015 and €12,328/QALY for AntiHCV, DBS-AntiHCV and DBS-RNA HCV, respectively. There was a decrease in mortality due to liver disease in comparison to no screening for AntiHCV (40.7% and 52%), DBS-AntiHCV (45% and 80%) and DBS-RNA HCV (45.2% and 80%) for low-prevalence and high-prevalence populations, respectively. CONCLUSION: All test interventions for HCV screening are cost-effective for the early detection of HCV infection, also achieving a reduction in mortality. Thus, implementation of screening programs for HCV should not be halted by decisions on monetary policy.

Colorectal cancer screening in the familial risk population: Is colonoscopy still the strategy of choice?

First-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) are at high risk of this disease. For this reason, medical organizations and clinical guidelines recommend more intensive screening and surveillance for such first-degree relatives than for the average-risk population. Colonoscopy has been the cornerstone of CRC screening in this setting. Although colonoscopy is the most sensitive technique for the detection of neoplastic lesions (especially non-advanced adenomas), its role is less clear for CRC. In addition, screening colonoscopy has several limitations that may affect the success of a screening campaign, such as poor participant acceptance, the need for skilled endoscopists, participant access to screening colonoscopy, overburdened endoscopy units, potential complications, and procedure-related costs. In addition, recent evidence has cast doubt on the advantage of colonoscopy over other strategies for the detection of advanced neoplastic lesions. Despite being less sensitive in general, other screening methods frequently recommended in the average-risk population may be more acceptable and thus help increase CRC screening uptake. This review discusses recent evidence on the risk of CRC in first-degree relatives, the advantages and disadvantages of each screening technique, participation rates depending on the technique, patient preferences, and barriers to screening.

Prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to perform a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of the different strategies used to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) acute pancreatitis. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness decision analysis of 4 prophylactic strategies (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or NSAIDs, pancreatic stent, stent plus rectal indomethacin, and no prophylaxis) in a simulated cohort of 300 patients during 1 year. Treatment effectiveness was defined as the number of patients who did not develop post-ERCP pancreatitis. RESULTS: The baseline costs of each strategy were as follows: rectal NSAID $359,098, pancreatic stent $426,504, stent plus rectal indomethacin $479,153, and no prophylaxis $491,275. The mean number of cases developing post-ERCP pancreatitis was 16, 21, 23, and 37 for the strategies rectal NSAID, pancreatic stent, stent plus rectal indomethacin, and no prophylaxis, respectively. Taking rectal NSAID prophylaxis as the reference strategy, the odds ratio of an episode of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis after pancreatic stent placement was 1.33 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-2.61); after stent plus indomethacin, it was 1.40 (95% CI, 0.72-2.73), and after no prophylaxis, it was 2.49 (95% CI, 1.35-4.59). CONCLUSIONS: Rectal NSAID administration proved to be the most cost-effective prophylactic strategy used to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. The strategy of no prophylaxis for this complication should be avoided.