A cost-effectiveness analysis of endoscopic eradication therapy for management of dysplasia arising in patients with Barrett's oesophagus in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is the first line approach for treating Barrett's oesophagus (BE) related neoplasia globally. The British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) recommend EET with combined endoscopic resection (ER) for visible dysplasia followed by endoscopic ablation in patients with both low and high grade dysplasia (LGD and HGD). The aim of this study is to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis for EET for treatment of all grades of dysplasia in BE patients. METHODS: A Markov cohort model with a lifetime time horizon was used to undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis. A hypothetical cohort of UK patients diagnosed with BE entered the model. Patients in the treatment arm with LGD and HGD received EET and patients with non-dysplastic BE (NDBE) received endoscopic surveillance only. In the comparator arm, patients with LGD, HGD and NDBE received endoscopic surveillance only. A UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective was adopted and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. Sensitivity analysis was conducted on key input parameters. RESULTS: EET for patients with LGD and HGD arising in BE is cost-effective compared to endoscopic surveillance alone (lifetime ICER £3006 per quality adjusted life year [QALY] gained). The results show that, as the time horizon increases, the treatment becomes more cost-effective. The 5 year financial impact to the UK NHS of introducing EET is £7.1m. CONCLUSIONS: EET for patients with low and high grade BE dysplasia, following updated guidelines from the BSG, has been shown to be cost-effective for patients with BE in the UK.

Examining the implementation of NICE guidance: cross-sectional survey of the use of NICE interventional procedures guidance by NHS Trusts.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, NHS hospitals receive large amounts of evidence-based recommendations for care delivery from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and other organisations. Little is known about how NHS organisations implement such guidance and best practice for doing so. This study was therefore designed to examine the dissemination, decision-making, and monitoring processes for NICE interventional procedures (IP) guidance and to investigate the barriers and enablers to the implementation of such guidance. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey questionnaire was developed and distributed to individuals responsible for managing the processes around NICE guidance in all 181 acute NHS hospitals in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A review of acute NHS hospital policies for implementing NICE guidance was also undertaken using information available in the public domain and from organisations' websites. RESULTS: The response rate to the survey was 75 % with 135 completed surveys received. Additionally, policies from 25 % of acute NHS hospitals were identified and analysed. NHS acute hospitals typically had detailed processes in place to implement NICE guidance, although organisations recognised barriers to implementation including organisational process barriers, clinical engagement and poor targeting with a large number of guidance issued. Examples of enablers to, and good practice for, implementation of guidance were found, most notably the value of shared learning experiences between NHS hospitals. Implications for NICE were also identified. These included making improvements to the layout of guidance, signposting on the website and making better use of their shared learning platform. CONCLUSIONS: Most organisations have robust processes in place to deal with implementing guidance. However, resource limitations and the scope of guidance received by organisations create barriers relating to organisational processes, clinician engagement and financing of new procedures. Guidance implementation can be facilitated through encouragement of shared learning by organisations such as NICE and open knowledge transfer between organisations.

CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR SCANNING MODALITY TO DIAGNOSE FOCAL LIVER LESIONS.

OBJECTIVES: Differences in the process of using liver imaging technologies might be important to patients. This study aimed to investigate preferences for scanning modalities used in diagnosing focal liver lesions. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was administered to 504 adults aged 25 ≥years. Respondents made repeated choices between two hypothetical scans, described according to waiting time for scan and results, procedure type, the chance of minor side-effects, and whether further scanning procedures were likely to be required. Choice data were analyzed using mixed-logit models with respondent characteristics used to explain preference heterogeneity. RESULTS: Respondents preferred shorter waiting times, the procedure to be undertaken with a handheld scanner on a couch instead of within a body scanner, no side-effects, and no follow­up scans (p≤.01). The average respondent was willing to wait an additional 2 weeks for the scan if it resulted in avoiding side-effects, 1.5 weeks to avoid further procedures or to be told the results immediately, and 1 week to have the scan performed on a couch with a handheld scanner. However, substantial heterogeneity was observed in the strength of preference for desirable imaging characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: An average individual belonging to a general population sub­group most likely to require imaging to characterize focal liver lesions in the United Kingdom would prefer contrast­enhanced ultrasound over magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography. Insights into the patient perspective around differential characteristics of imaging modalities have the potential to be used to guide recommendations around the use of these technologie

Heterogeneity in patient diagnostic pathways: an example from contrast-enhanced ultrasound diagnostic scans for focal liver lesions.

BACKGROUND: The UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has recommended contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the characterisation of focal liver lesions where the results of standard unenhanced ultrasound are inconclusive. A further recommendation is for CEUS to replace other imaging modalities. However, little is currently known about the diagnostic pathways in the National Health Service (NHS) followed by patients with potential liver lesions. The aim of this study was to identify the diagnostic pathways for a number of representative hospital trusts and record the clinicians' views on patient experiences of these processes through a series of semi-structured interviews with UK clinicians (radiologists and sonographers) (N = 7). This study was undertaken in the broader context of a larger research project where the overarching research question is focused on patient preferences for CEUS and other imaging modalities, and how these impact on patient quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: The results from the semi-structured interviews with UK clinicians revealed that there is a great deal of heterogeneity in diagnostic pathways followed by patients with potential liver lesions which differ both within and between hospitals. In terms of the patient experience, the clinicians believed that a combination of the more patient-friendly ultrasound process, and the fact that scan results are given to patients in 80-90% of cases on the day, as well as the problems inherent to other scan modalities (claustrophobia, anxiety) would lead to patients preferring ultrasound compared with other imaging modalities (CT or MR). However, current clinical practice means that patient choice is virtually non-existent. CONCLUSIONS: The significant variation in diagnostic pathways across the NHS will require further standardisation through local agreements if contrast-enhanced ultrasound is to replace other imaging modalities in characterising focal liver lesions in line with NICE Diagnostics Guidance. The gradual development of patient choice of modalities may necessitate a change of practice in radiology processes.