Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2010
A UK-based cost-utility analysis of radiofrequency ablation or oesophagectomy for the management of high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's oesophagus.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Boger P C, Turner D, Roderick P, Patel P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In the UK, oesophagectomy is the current recommendation for patients with persistent high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's oesophagus. Radiofrequency ablation is an alternative new technology with promising early trial results.
AIM: To undertake a cost-utility analysis comparing these two strategies.
METHODS: We constructed a Markov model to simulate the natural history of a cohort of patients with high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's oesophagus undergoing one of two treatment options: (i) oesophagectomy or (ii) radiofrequency ablation followed by endoscopic surveillance with oesophagectomy for high-grade dysplasia recurrence or persistence.
RESULTS: In the base case analysis, radiofrequency ablation dominated as it generated 0.4 extra quality of life years at a cost saving of £1902. For oesophagectomy to be the most cost-effective option, it required a radiofrequency ablation treatment failure rate (high-grade dysplasia persistence or progression to cancer) of >44%, or an annual risk of high-grade dysplasia recurrence or progression to cancer in the ablated oesophagus of >15% per annum. There was an 85% probability that radiofrequency ablation remained cost-effective at the NICE willingness to pay threshold range of £20 000-30 000.
CONCLUSION: Radiofrequency ablation is likely to be a cost-effective option for high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's oesophagus in the UK.
AIM: To undertake a cost-utility analysis comparing these two strategies.
METHODS: We constructed a Markov model to simulate the natural history of a cohort of patients with high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's oesophagus undergoing one of two treatment options: (i) oesophagectomy or (ii) radiofrequency ablation followed by endoscopic surveillance with oesophagectomy for high-grade dysplasia recurrence or persistence.
RESULTS: In the base case analysis, radiofrequency ablation dominated as it generated 0.4 extra quality of life years at a cost saving of £1902. For oesophagectomy to be the most cost-effective option, it required a radiofrequency ablation treatment failure rate (high-grade dysplasia persistence or progression to cancer) of >44%, or an annual risk of high-grade dysplasia recurrence or progression to cancer in the ablated oesophagus of >15% per annum. There was an 85% probability that radiofrequency ablation remained cost-effective at the NICE willingness to pay threshold range of £20 000-30 000.
CONCLUSION: Radiofrequency ablation is likely to be a cost-effective option for high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's oesophagus in the UK.