Impact of expert center endoscopic assessment of confirmed low grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus diagnosed in community hospitals.

BACKGROUND : The optimal management for patients with low grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett's esophagus (BE) is unclear. According to the Dutch national guideline, all patients with LGD with histological confirmation of the diagnosis by an expert pathologist (i. e. "confirmed LGD"), are referred for a dedicated re-staging endoscopy at an expert center. We aimed to assess the diagnostic value of re-staging endoscopy by an expert endoscopist for patients with confirmed LGD. METHODS : This retrospective cohort study included all patients with flat BE diagnosed in a community hospital who had confirmed LGD and were referred to one of the nine Barrett Expert Centers (BECs) in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with prevalent high grade dysplasia (HGD) or cancer during re-staging in a BEC. RESULTS : Of the 248 patients with confirmed LGD, re-staging in the BEC revealed HGD or cancer in 23 % (57/248). In 79 % (45/57), HGD or cancer in a newly detected visible lesion was diagnosed. Of the remaining patients, re-staging in the BEC showed a second diagnosis of confirmed LGD in 68 % (168/248), while the remaining 9 % (23/248) had nondysplastic BE. CONCLUSION : One quarter of patients with apparent flat BE with confirmed LGD diagnosed in a community hospital had prevalent HGD or cancer after re-staging at an expert center. This endorses the advice to refer patients with confirmed LGD, including in the absence of visible lesions, to an expert center for re-staging endoscopy.

Randomised controlled trial of transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus endoscopic mucosal resection for large rectal adenomas (TREND Study).

OBJECTIVE: Non-randomised studies suggest that endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is equally effective in removing large rectal adenomas as transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), but EMR might be more cost-effective and safer. This trial compares the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of TEM and EMR for large rectal adenomas. DESIGN: Patients with rectal adenomas ≥3 cm, without malignant features, were randomised (1:1) to EMR or TEM, allowing endoscopic removal of residual adenoma at 3 months. Unexpected malignancies were excluded postrandomisation. Primary outcomes were recurrence within 24 months (aiming to demonstrate non-inferiority of EMR, upper limit 10%) and the number of recurrence-free days alive and out of hospital. RESULTS: Two hundred and four patients were treated in 18 university and community hospitals. Twenty-seven (13%) had unexpected cancer and were excluded from further analysis. Overall recurrence rates were 15% after EMR and 11% after TEM; statistical non-inferiority was not reached. The numbers of recurrence-free days alive and out of hospital were similar (EMR 609±209, TEM 652±188, p=0.16). Complications occurred in 18% (EMR) versus 26% (TEM) (p=0.23), with major complications occurring in 1% (EMR) versus 8% (TEM) (p=0.064). Quality-adjusted life years were equal in both groups. EMR was approximately €3000 cheaper and therefore more cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Under the statistical assumptions of this study, non-inferiority of EMR could not be demonstrated. However, EMR may have potential as the primary method of choice due to a tendency of lower complication rates and a better cost-effectiveness ratio. The high rate of unexpected cancers should be dealt with in further studies.

The cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation for Barrett's esophagus with low-grade dysplasia: results from a randomized controlled trial (SURF trial).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Surveillance versus Radiofrequency Ablation (SURF) trial randomized 136 patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) containing low-grade dysplasia (LGD), to receive radiofrequency ablation (ablation, n = 68) or endoscopic surveillance (control, n = 68). Ablation reduced the risk of neoplastic progression to high-grade dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) by 25% over 3 years (1.5% for ablation vs 26.5% for control). We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from a provider perspective alongside this trial. METHODS: Patients were followed for 3 years to quantify their use of health care services, including therapeutic and surveillance endoscopies, treatment of adverse events, and medication. Costs for treatment of progression were analyzed separately. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated by dividing the difference in costs (excluding and including the downstream costs for treatment of progression) by the difference in prevented events of progression. Bootstrap analysis (1000 samples) was used to construct 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Patients who underwent ablation generated mean costs of U.S.$13,503 during the trial versus $2236 for controls (difference $11,267; 95% CI, $9996-$12,378), with an ICER per prevented event of progression of $45,066. Including the costs for treatment of progression, ablation patients generated mean costs of $13,523 versus $4,930 for controls (difference $8593; 95% CI, $6881-$10,153) with an ICER of $34,373. Based on the various ICER estimates derived from the bootstrap analysis, one can be reasonably certain (>75%) that ablation is efficient at a willingness to pay of $51,664 per prevented event of progression or $40,915 including downstream costs of progression. CONCLUSIONS: Ablation for patients with confirmed BE-LGD is more effective and more expensive than endoscopic surveillance in reducing the risk of progression to high-grade dysplasia/EAC. The increase in costs of ablation can be justified to avoid a serious event such as neoplastic progression. At a willingness to pay of $40,915 per prevented event of progression, one can be reasonably certain that ablation is efficient. (www.trialregister.nl number: NTR 1198.).

Comparison of medical costs generated by IBS patients in primary and secondary care in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is a functional somatic syndrome characterized by patterns of persistent bodily complaints for which a thorough diagnostic workup does not reveal adequate explanatory structural pathology. Detailed insight into disease-specific health-care costs is critical because it co-determines the societal impact of the disease, enables the assessment of cost-effectiveness of existing and new treatments, and facilitates choices in treatment policy. In the present study the aim was, to compare the costs and magnitude of healthcare consumption for patients diagnosed with Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) in primary and secondary care, compare these costs with the average health care expenditure for patients without IBS and describe these costs in further detail. METHODS: Reimbursement data for patients diagnosed with IBS by a general practitioner (GP) or specialist between 2006 and 2009 were extracted from a healthcare insurance company and compared to an age and gender matched control group of patients without IBS. Using a case-control design, direct medical costs for GP consultations, specialist care and medication prescriptions were calculated. RESULTS: Data of 326 primary care and 9274 secondary care IBS patients were included in the analysis. For primary care patients, the mean total annual health care costs for the three years after diagnosis compared to the three years before diagnosis, increased with 486 Euro after IBS was diagnosed, whereas for secondary care patients, these costs increased with 2328 Euro. Total health care costs remained higher in the three years after the initial diagnosis when the patient is treated in secondary care, compared to primary care. This increase was significant for hospital specialist costs and medications, but not for GP contacts. For controls, there was no significant difference in mean total annual health costs in the three years before and the three years after the diagnosis and also no significant difference in cost increases between both primary- and secondary-care control patients. CONCLUSION: Total healthcare costs per patient substantially increase after a diagnosis of IBS and IBS related costs are significantly higher when patients are treated in secondary-care compared to primary-care. IBS patients should be treated in primary-care where possible, not only because guidelines recommend this from a quality of care viewpoint, but also to optimize use of health care resources. Referral should be restricted to those patients with alarm symptoms, with ill-matching symptoms, or other cases of diagnostic uncertainty.

Cost Efficacy of Metal Stents for Palliation of Extrahepatic Bile Duct Obstruction in a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic stents are placed for palliation of extrahepatic bile duct obstruction. Although self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) remain patent longer than plastic stents, they are more expensive. We aimed to evaluate which type of stent (plastic, uncovered SEMS [uSEMS], or partially covered SEMS [pcSEMS]) is the most effective and we assessed costs. METHODS: We performed a multicenter randomized trial in 219 patients at 18 hospitals in The Netherlands from February 2008 through February 2013. Patients were assigned randomly for placement of a plastic stent (n = 73), uSEMS (n = 75), or pcSEMS (n = 71) during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Patients were followed up for up to 1 year. Researchers were not blinded to groups. The main study end points included functional stent time and costs. RESULTS: The mean functional stent times were 172 days for plastic stents, 288 days for uSEMS, and 299 days for pcSEMS (P < .005 for uSEMS and pcSEMS vs plastic). The initial placement of plastic stents (€1042 or $1106) cost significantly less than placement of SEMS (€1973 or $2094) (P = .001). However, the total cost per patient at the end of the follow-up period did not differ significantly between plastic stents (€7320 or $7770) and SEMS (€6932 or $7356) (P = .61). Furthermore, in patients with short survival times (≤3 mo) or metastatic disease, the total cost per patient did not differ between plastic stents and SEMS. No differences in costs were found between pcSEMS and uSEMS. CONCLUSIONS: Although placement of SEMS (uncovered or partially covered) for palliation of extrahepatic bile duct obstruction initially is more expensive than placement of plastic stents, SEMS have longer functional time. The total costs after 1 year do not differ significantly with stent type. Dutch Clinical Trial Registration no: NTR1361.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus endoscopic mucosal resection for large rectal adenomas (TREND-study).

BACKGROUND: Recent non-randomized studies suggest that extended endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is equally effective in removing large rectal adenomas as transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). If equally effective, EMR might be a more cost-effective approach as this strategy does not require expensive equipment, general anesthesia and hospital admission. Furthermore, EMR appears to be associated with fewer complications.The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of TEM and EMR for the resection of large rectal adenomas. METHODS/DESIGN: Multicenter randomized trial among 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with a rectal adenoma > or = 3 cm, located between 1-15 cm ab ano, will be randomized to a TEM- or EMR-treatment strategy. For TEM, patients will be treated under general anesthesia, adenomas will be dissected en-bloc by a full-thickness excision, and patients will be admitted to the hospital. For EMR, no or conscious sedation is used, lesions will be resected through the submucosal plane in a piecemeal fashion, and patients will be discharged from the hospital. Residual adenoma that is visible during the first surveillance endoscopy at 3 months will be removed endoscopically in both treatment strategies and is considered as part of the primary treatment. Primary outcome measure is the proportion of patients with recurrence after 3 months. Secondary outcome measures are: 2) number of days not spent in hospital from initial treatment until 2 years afterwards; 3) major and minor morbidity; 4) disease specific and general quality of life; 5) anorectal function; 6) health care utilization and costs. A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of EMR against TEM for large rectal adenomas will be performed from a societal perspective with respectively the costs per recurrence free patient and the cost per quality adjusted life year as outcome measures. Based on comparable recurrence rates for TEM and EMR of 3.3% and considering an upper-limit of 10% for EMR to be non-inferior (beta-error 0.2 and one-sided alpha-error 0.05), 89 patients are needed per group. DISCUSSION: The TREND study is the first randomized trial evaluating whether TEM or EMR is more cost-effective for the treatment of large rectal adenomas. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: (trialregister.nl) NTR1422.