Capsule enteroscopy vs. other diagnostic procedures in diagnosing obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: a cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Capsule enteroscopy is considered the gold standard for evaluating patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. The costs of capsule enteroscopy examination, however, make it uncertain whether the clinically relevant diagnostic gain is also associated with cost savings. AIM: To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of capsule enteroscopy in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. METHODS: Retrospective study was carried out in nine Italian gastroenterology units from 2003 to 2005. Data on 369 consecutive patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding were collected. The diagnostic yield of capsule enteroscopy vs. other imaging procedures was evaluated as a measure of efficacy. The values of Diagnosis Related Group 175 (euro 1884.00 for obscure-occult bleeding and euro 2141.00 for obscure-overt bleeding) were calculated as measures of economic outcomes in the cost analysis. RESULTS: Obscure and occult gastrointestinal bleeding was recorded in 177 patients (48%) with a mean duration of anemia history of 17.6+/-20.7 months. Among patients, 60.9% had had at least one hospital admission, 21.2% at least two, and 1.2% of obscure bleeders up to nine admissions. Overall, 58.4% of patients had positive findings with capsule enteroscopy compared with 28.0% with other imaging procedures (P<0.001). The mean cost of a positive diagnosis with capsule enteroscopy was euro 2090.76 and that of other procedures was euro 3828.83 with a mean cost saving of euro 1738.07 (P<0.001) for one positive diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Capsule enteroscopy is a cost-saving approach in the evaluation of patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.

Lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B: an observational study on adefovir in monotherapy or in combination with lamivudine.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In lamivudine-resistant patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB), we compared efficacy, predictive response factors and changes in viral mutants in two antiviral approaches with adefovir. METHODS: A prospective cohort study on therapy with adefovir alone (29 patients) or combined with ongoing lamivudine (23 patients) was performed. RESULTS: A virological response was achieved in 55% of patients treated with adefovir and in 83% of those treated with the combination (p>0.05). This response was directly related to the basal viral load (p<0.0001) and obtained in 10 patients with basal HBV-DNA<17,200 IU/ml using both strategies. In patients with a higher basal viral load, the virological response was more frequent when treated with the combination (p<0.05). Mutation at locus rt181 predicted HBV-DNA persistence during therapy. A virological rebound was observed in 18% of non-responders while on adefovir monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: To achieve a complete virological response and reduce the risk of adefovir-resistant mutants in lamivudine-resistant patients, rescue therapy is preferable at early evidence of genotypic resistance. However, in subjects with a significant viral load, combination therapy is more effective. The presence of the rt181 mutation is associated with incomplete response.