Re-examination of the cost-effectiveness of surgical versus medical therapy in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: the value of long-term data collection.

OBJECTIVES: For patients with reflux esophagitis, long-term therapeutic options include proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy and/or antireflux surgery. An earlier cost-effectiveness analysis concluded that at 5 yr, medical therapy was less expensive but similarly effective to fundoplication, but the results were sensitive to estimates on quality of life and long-term medication usage, which were derived from "expert opinion." Recently, data from randomized controlled trials addressing these variables have become available. We have incorporated these new data into a revised Markov model to examine the cost-effectiveness of surgical versus medical therapy in patients with severe reflux esophagitis. METHODS: A Markov simulation model was constructed using specialized software (DATA PRO 4.0, Williamstown, MA). Total expected costs and quality-adjusted life-years were calculated for long-term medical therapy and for laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Probabilities were obtained from the medical literature using Medline. Procedural and hospitalization costs used were the average Medicare reimbursements at our institution. Medication costs were the average wholesale price. The analysis was extended over a 10-yr time horizon at a discount rate of 3%. RESULTS: The discounted analysis shows that medical therapy is associated with total costs of 8,798 dollars and 4.59 quality-adjusted life-years, whereas the surgical strategy is more expensive (10,475 dollars) and less effective (4.55 quality-adjusted life-years). The results were robust to most one-way sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term medical therapy with proton pump inhibitors is the preferred strategy for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and severe esophagitis. Our study highlights the importance of using primary, patient-derived data rather than expert opinion.

Medical or invasive therapy for GERD: an acidulous analysis.

This review critically appraises the evidence on the benefits and costs of the available treatments for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and concludes that antireflux surgery has no clear advantages over medical therapy for efficacy of healing, prevention of complications, safety, side effects, and cost. Indeed, medical therapy is safer and, probably, more cost-effective. Compared with medically treated patients, those who have successful fundoplication may be less inconvenienced by GERD because they are less likely to need to take pills on a daily basis. The patient and physician must judge whether that benefit justifies the risks of surgery for a benign condition. There is not yet sufficient data available on the endoscopic antireflux procedures to make meaningful conclusions regarding their safety and efficacy.

Screening for Barrett's esophagus.

Screening and surveillance for Barrett's esophagus have been proposed as strategies for preventing deaths from esophageal adenocarcinoma. A meaningful discussion on the cost efficacy of screening and surveillance for Barrett's esophagus requires a reasonable estimate of the risk of esophageal cancer in this condition. The primary goal of endoscopic screening for individuals with gastroesophageal reflux disease is to identify patients with Barrett's esophagus who will benefit from an intervention to prevent cancer. There is also indirect evidence to suggest that surveillance for Barrett's esophagus may be beneficial. However, there is much debate over the efficacy of these diagnostic procedures. In the absence of definitive data, investigators have used computer models to study the cost effectiveness of screening and surveillance for Barrett's esophagus. It is important for physicians to recognize that such models do not provide a single, definitive answer.