Wide Area Transepithelial Sampling with Computer-Assisted Analysis (WATS3D) Is Cost-Effective in Barrett's Esophagus Screening.

BACKGROUND: Wide area transepithelial sampling with three-dimensional computer-assisted analysis (WATS3D) is an adjunct to the standard random 4-quadrant forceps biopsies (FB, "Seattle protocol") that significantly increases the detection of Barrett's esophagus (BE) and associated neoplasia in patients undergoing screening or surveillance. AIMS: To examine the cost-effectiveness of adding WATS3D to the Seattle protocol in screening patients for BE. METHODS: A decision analytic model was used to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two alternative BE screening strategies in chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease patients: FB with and without WATS3D. The reference case was a 60-year-old white male with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Effectiveness was measured by the number needed to screen to avert one cancer and one cancer-related death, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost was measured in 2019 US$, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was measured in $/QALY using thresholds for cost-effectiveness of $100,000/QALY and $150,000/QALY. Cost was measured in 2019 US$. Cost and QALYs were discounted at 3% per year. RESULTS: Between 320 and 337 people would need to be screened with WATS3D in addition to FB to avert one additional cancer, and 328-367 people to avert one cancer-related death. Screening with WATS3D costs an additional $1219 and produced an additional 0.017 QALYs, for an ICER of $71,395/QALY. All one-way sensitivity analyses resulted in ICERs under $84,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for BE in 60-year-old white male GERD patients is more cost-effective when WATS3D is used adjunctively to the Seattle protocol than with the Seattle protocol alone.

Cost-effectiveness of electronic- and clinician-delivered screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment for women in reproductive health centers.

AIMS: To determine the cost-effectiveness of electronic- and clinician-delivered SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment) for reducing primary substance use among women treated in reproductive health centers. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: New Haven, CT, USA. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 439 women seeking routine care in reproductive health centers who used cigarettes, risky amounts of alcohol, illicit drugs or misused prescription medication. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to enhanced usual care (EUC, n = 151), electronic-delivered SBIRT (e-SBIRT, n = 143) or clinician-delivered SBIRT (SBIRT, n = 145). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was days of primary substance abstinence during the 6-month follow-up period. To account for the possibility that patients might substitute a different drug for their primary substance during the 6-month follow-up period, we also considered the number of days of abstinence from all substances. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves determined the relative cost-effectiveness of the three conditions from both the clinic and patient perspectives. FINDINGS: From a health-care provider perspective, e-SBIRT is likely (with probability greater than 0.5) to be cost-effective for any willingness-to-pay value for an additional day of primary-substance abstinence and an additional day of all-substance abstinence. From a patient perspective, EUC is most likely to be the cost-effective intervention when the willingness to pay for an additional day of abstinence (both primary-substance and all-substance) is less than $0.18 and e-SBIRT is most likely to be the cost-effective intervention when the willingness to pay for an additional day of abstinence (both primary-substance and all-substance) is greater than $0.18. CONCLUSIONS: e-SBIRT could be a cost-effective approach, from both health-care provider and patient perspectives, for use in reproductive health centers to help women reduce substance misuse.

Telemedicine and M-Health in Hypertension Management: Technologies, Applications and Clinical Evidence.

Electronic processes and communication technologies are more and more often employed to provide healthcare services to caregivers and their patients. Such solutions are currently referred as e-health, the most popular and widely distributed being those based on telemedicine and mobile health (m-health). A specific application of telemedicine for hypertension management is blood pressure telemonitoring (BPT), which allows remote data transmission of BP and additional information on patients' health status from their living site or from a community setting to the doctor's office or the hospital. Several randomized studies have documented a significant BP reduction with regular BPT compared to usual care, particularly in high risk hypertensive patients. Additional benefits are observed when BPT is offered under the supervision of a team of healthcare professionals, including a community pharmacist. BPT may also be provided in the context of m-health solutions, which commonly include wireless diagnostic and clinical decision support tools. M-health has the potential to promote patient's self-management, as a complement to the doctor's intervention, and encourage greater participation in medical decision making. Current statistics show that half of smartphone owners gather health information through their phone and 19 % use a health app. In case of hypertensive patients the most popular apps are those with tracking function, including BPT. Thus, e-health, and in particular BPT and m-health, are progressively gaining a key role in the management of hypertensive patients, having the potential to improve the quality of the delivered care and to more effectively prevent cardiovascular consequences of high BP.

[Assessment of benefit and efficiency of innovative medical devices]. / Nutzen- und Wirtschaftlichkeitsbewertung der biomedizinischen Technik.

Medical devices cover a wide spectrum of products with very different diagnostic and therapeutic applications. However, for market licensing, uniform rules apply. Uniform rules are also valid for coverage decisions in German health care. In this article, the criteria for the assessment of benefit and efficiency of innovative biomedical technologies are described from the perspective of the statutory health insurance system. The key concepts relevant in the mandatory health insurance' "innovation"' "benefit", and "economic efficiency" are characterized. Only measurable effects of an intervention which lead to a more than marginal improvement in prognosis, symptoms, or quality of life as compared to a standard treatment are considered as beneficial. An innovative device is, therefore, subject to a benefit assessment if it is not yet reimbursed (or not yet part of the benefit package), when it is relevant to the health care system and a high public interest exists. In addition, it is important to consider a positive benefit assessment as a part of the value added chain to avoid conflicts of interest. Within the scope of early technology assessment, some conclusions can already be drawn in the early developmental stage of a device.