Endoscopic full-thickness resection and its treatment alternatives in difficult-to-treat lesions of the lower gastrointestinal tract: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) has shown efficacy and safety in the colorectum. The aim of this analysis was to investigate whether EFTR is cost-effective in comparison with surgical and endoscopic treatment alternatives. DESIGN: Real data from the study cohort of the prospective, single-arm WALL RESECT study were used. A simulated comparison arm was created based on a survey that included suggested treatment alternatives to EFTR of the respective lesions. Treatment costs and reimbursement were calculated in euro according to the coding rules of 2017 and 2019 (EFTR). R0 resection rate was used as a measure of effectiveness. To assess cost-effectiveness, the average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were determined. Calculations were made both from the perspective of the care provider as well as of the payer. RESULTS: The cost per case was €2852.20 for the EFTR group, €1712 for the standard endoscopic resection (SER) group, €8895 for the surgical resection group and €5828 for the pooled alternative treatment to EFTR. From the perspective of the care provider, the ACER (mean cost per R0 resection) was €3708.98 for EFTR, €3115.10 for SER, €8924.05 for surgical treatment and €7169.30 for all pooled and weighted alternatives to EFTR. The ICER (additional cost per R0 resection compared with EFTR) was €5196.47 for SER, €26 533.13 for surgical resection and €67 768.62 for the pooled rate of alternatives. Results from the perspective of the payer were similar. CONCLUSION: EFTR is cost-effective in comparison with surgical and endoscopic treatment alternatives in the colorectum.

Over-the-scope clips are cost-effective in recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding.

Background: A recent prospective randomised controlled trial ('STING') showed superiority of over-the-scope clips compared to standard treatment in recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding. Cost-effectiveness studies on haemostasis with over-the-scope clips have not been reported so far. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate whether the higher efficacy of the over-the-scope clips treatment outweighs the higher costs of the device compared to standard clips. Methods: For the analysis, the study population of the STING trial was used. Costs for the hospital stay in total as well as treatment-related costs were obtained. The average cost-effectiveness ratio, representing the mean costs per designated outcome, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, expressing the additional costs of a new treatment strategy per difference in outcome were calculated. The designated outcome was defined as successful haemostasis without rebleeding within seven days, which was the primary endpoint of the STING trial. Average cost-effectiveness ratio and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated for total costs of the hospital stay as well as the haemostasis treatment alone. The cost-effectiveness analysis is taken from the perspective of the care provider.Results: Total costs and treatment-related costs per patient were 13,007.07 € in the standard group vs 12,808.56 € in the over-the-scope clip group (p = 0.812) and 2084.98 € vs 1984.71 € respectively (p = 0.663). The difference was not statistically significant. Total costs per successful haemostasis (average cost-effectiveness ratio) were 30,677.05 € vs 15,104.43 € and 4917.41 € vs 2340.46 € for the haemostasis treatment. The additional costs per successful haemostasis with over-the-scope clip treatment (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) is -468.18 € for the whole treatment and -236.49€ for the haemostasis treatment. Conclusions: Over-the-scope clip treatment is cost-effective in recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding.