Cost-Effectiveness of Restrictive Strategy Versus Usual Care for Cholecystectomy in Patients With Gallstones and Abdominal Pain (SECURE-Trial)

Restrictive Strategy vs Usual Care for Cholecystectomy in Patients With Abdominal Pain and Gallstones: 5-Year Follow-Up of the SECURE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The 1-year results of the SECURE trial, a randomized trial comparing a restrictive strategy vs usual care for select patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis for cholecystectomy, resulted in a significantly lower operation rate after restrictive strategy. However, a restrictive strategy did not result in more pain-free patients at 1 year.

Objective

To gauge pain level and determine the proportion of pain-free patients, operation rate, and biliary and surgical complications at the 5-year follow-up.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This randomized clinical trial was a multicenter, parallel-arm, noninferiority, prospective study. Between February 2014 and April 2017, patients from 24 hospitals with symptomatic, uncomplicated cholelithiasis were included. Uncomplicated cholelithiasis was defined as gallstone disease without signs of complicated cholelithiasis, ie, biliary pancreatitis, cholangitis, common bile duct stones, or cholecystitis. Follow-up data for this analysis were collected by telephone from July 11, 2019, to September 23, 2023.

Interventions

Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive usual care or a restrictive strategy with stepwise selection for cholecystectomy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary, noninferiority end point was proportion of patients who were pain free as evaluated by Izbicki pain score at the 5-year follow-up. A 5% noninferiority margin was chosen. The secondary end points included cholecystectomy rates, biliary and surgical complications, and patient satisfaction.

Results

Among 1067 patients, the median (IQR) age was 49.0 years (38.0-59.0 years); 786 (73.7%) were female, and 281 (26.3%) were male. At the 5-year follow-up, 228 of 363 patients (62.8%) were pain free in the usual care group, compared with 216 of 353 patients (61.2%) in restrictive strategy group (difference, 1.6%; 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit, -7.6%; noninferiority P = .18). After cholecystectomy, 187 of 294 patients (63.6%) in the usual care group and 160 of 254 patients (63.0%) in the restrictive strategy group were pain free, respectively (P = .88). The restrictive care strategy was associated with 387 of 529 cholecystectomies (73.2%) compared with 437 of 536 in the usual care group (81.5%; 8.3% difference; P = .001). No differences between groups were observed in biliary and surgical complications or in patient satisfaction.

Conclusions and Relevance

In the long-term, a restrictive strategy results in a significant but small reduction in operation rate compared with usual care and is not associated with increased biliary and surgical complications. However, regardless of the strategy, only two-third of patients were pain free. Further criteria for selecting patients with uncomplicated cholelithiasis for cholecystectomy and rethinking laparoscopic cholecystectomy as treatment is needed to improve patient-reported outcomes.

Trial Registration

CCMO Identifier: NTR4022.

Budget Impact of Restrictive Strategy Versus Usual Care for Cholecystectomy (SECURE-trial)

OBJECTIVES

A cost-effectiveness analysis of a multicenter randomized-controlled trial comparing restrictive strategy versus usual care in patients with gallstones showed that savings by restrictive strategy could not compensate for the lower proportion of pain-free patients. However, four subgroups based on combined stratification factors resulted in less cholecystectomies and more pain-free patients in restrictive strategy (female-low volume-BMI > 30, female-low volume-BMI25-30, female-high volume-BMI25-30, and male-low volume-BMI < 25). The aim of this study was to explore the budget impact from a hospital healthcare perspective of implementation of restrictive strategy in these subgroups.

METHODS

Data of the SECURE-trial were used to calculate the hospital budget impact with a time horizon of four years. Based on a study into practice variation, about 19% of hospitals treat patients according restrictive strategy. This represents the proportion of patients treated according restrictive strategy at the start of budget period. Three subanalyses were performed: a scenario analysis in which 30% of patients fall under a restrictive strategy in clinical practice, a sensitivity analysis in which we calculated the budget impact with the low and high 95% confidence limits of the expected future number of patients, a subgroup analysis in which restrictive strategy was also implemented in two additional subgroups (male-high volume-BMI < 25 and female-high volume-BMI >30).

RESULTS

Budget impact analysis showed savings of €6.7-€15.6 million (2.2%-5.6%) for the period 2021-2024/2025 by implementing the restrictive strategy in the four subgroups and provision of usual care in other patients. Sensitivity analysis with 30% of patients already in the restrictive strategy at the start of the budget period, resulted in savings between €5.4 million and €14.0 million (1.7%-5.0%).

CONCLUSION

Performing a restrictive strategy for selection of cholecystectomy in subgroups of patients and provision of usual care in other patients will result in a lower overall hospital budget needed to treat patients with abdominal pain and gallstones.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Netherlands National Trial Register NTR4022. Registered on June 5, 2013.