Economic evaluation of treatment strategies in gastroenterology

Higher MELD score increases the overall cost on the waiting list for liver transplantation: a micro-costing analysis based study

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The pre-transplant period is complex and includes lots of procedures. The severity of liver disease predisposes to a high number of hospitalizations and high costs procedures. Economic evaluation studies are important tools to handle costs on the waiting list for liver transplantation. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to evaluate the total cost of the patient on the waiting list for liver transplantation and the main resources related to higher costs. METHODS: A cost study in a cohort of 482 patients registered on waiting list for liver transplantation was carried out. In 24 months follow-up, we evaluated all costs of materials, medicines, consultations, procedures, hospital admissions, laboratorial tests and image exams, hemocomponents replacements, and nutrition. The total amount of each resource or component used was aggregated and multiplied by the unitary cost, and thus individual cost for each patient was obtained. RESULTS: The total expenditure of the 482 patients was US$ 6,064,986.51. Outpatient and impatient costs correspond to 32.4% of total cost (US$ 1,965,045.52) and 67.6% (US$ 4,099,940.99) respectively. Main cost drivers in outpatient were: medicines (44.31%), laboratorial tests and image exams (31.68%). Main cost drivers regarding hospitalizations were: medicines (35.20%), bed use in ward and ICU (26.38%) and laboratorial tests (13.72%). Patients with MELD score between 25-30 were the most expensive on the waiting list (US$ 16,686.74 ± 16,105.02) and the less expensive were those with MELD below 17 (US$ 5,703.22 ± 9,318.68). CONCLUSION: Total costs on the waiting list for liver transplantation increased according to the patient’s severity. Individually, hospitalizations, hemocomponents reposition and hepatocellular carcinoma treatment were the main cost drivers to the patient on the waiting list. The longer the waiting time, the higher the total cost on list, causing greater impact on health systems.

Economic evaluations in gastroenterology in Brazil: A systematic review

AIM

To systematically review economic evaluations in gastroenterology, relating to Brazil, published between 1980 and 2013.

METHODS

We selected full and partial economic evaluations from among those retrieved by searching the following databases: MEDLINE (PubMed); Excerpta Medica; the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database; the Scientific Electronic Library Online; the database of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; the National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database; the NHS Health Technology Assessment database; the Health Economics database of the Brazilian Virtual Library of Health; Scopus; Web of Science; and the Brazilian Network for the Evaluation of Health Technologies. Two researchers, working independently, selected the studies and extracted the data.

RESULTS

We identified 535 health economic evaluations relating to Brazil and published in the 1980-2013 period. Of those 535 articles, only 40 dealt with gastroenterology. Full and partial economic evaluations respectively accounted for 23 (57.5%) and 17 (42.5%) of the 40 studies included. Among the 23 full economic evaluations, there were 11 cost-utility analyses, seven cost-effectiveness analyses, four cost-consequence analyses, and one cost-minimization analysis. Of the 40 studies, 25 (62.5%) evaluated medications; 7 (17.5%) evaluated procedures; and 3 (7.5%) evaluated equipment. Most (55%) of the studies were related to viral hepatitis, and most (63.4%) were published after 2010. Other topics included gastrointestinal cancer, liver transplantation, digestive diseases and hernias. Over the 33-year period examined, the number of such economic evaluations relating to Brazil, especially of those evaluating medications for the treatment of hepatitis, increased considerably.

CONCLUSION

Further studies are needed in order to ensure that expenditures on health care in Brazil are made as fairly and efficiently as possible.

Clinical outcomes and direct costings of endoluminal clipping compared to surgery in the management of iatrogenic colonic perforation

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes and costs of endoluminal clipping and surgery in the management of iatrogenic colonic perforation.

METHODS

A retrospective, single-center, clinical and economic analysis of outcomes and costings between endoluminal clipping and surgery in consecutive cases of iatrogenic colonic perforations was conducted.

RESULTS

In total, 7136 colonoscopies performed over a 6-year period were complicated by 12 (0.17%) perforations. Seven cases were treated by endoscopic clipping (with a success rate of 71.4%) and five with immediate surgery. Both groups of patients had similar clinical and individual characteristics. Patients who were treated with endoscopic clipping had a shorter period of hospitalization (median 9 vs 13 days) compared to surgery, but this was not statistically significant. Compared to patients who had immediate surgery, the median direct health-care costs for all procedures (US$ 115.10 vs US$ 1479.50, P = 0.012) and investigations (US$ 124.60 vs US$ 512.90, P = 0.048) during inpatient stay were lower for the endoscopic clipping group. There was a trend towards a lower overall inpatient median cost for patients managed with endoscopic clipping compared to surgery (US$ 1481.70 vs US$ 3281.90, P = 0.073).

CONCLUSION

Endoluminal clipping may be more cost-effective than surgery in the management of iatrogenic colonic perforations.

Cost benefit analysis of mesh reinforcement of stapled left pancreatectomy

OBJECTIVES

Pancreatic leak is a morbid complication following left pancreatectomy, which results in prolonged hospitalization, additional diagnostic testing and invasive procedures. The present authors have previously demonstrated that mesh reinforcement of stapled left pancreatectomy results in fewer pancreatic leaks. This study was conducted to investigate whether mesh reinforcement also results in cost benefits for the health care system.

METHODS

A cost benefit model was developed to estimate net cost savings from the payer's perspective. The model is based on the results of a randomized, single-blinded trial of mesh versus no mesh reinforcement of the pancreatic remnant after left pancreatectomy. A two-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the model's sensitivity to fluctuations in the cost of mesh and the effectiveness of the mesh in reducing clinically significant leaks.

RESULTS

Average total costs for an episode of care were US$13 337 and US$15 505 for patients who did and did not receive mesh, respectively, which indicates savings of US$2168. Two-way sensitivity analysis showed that, given a probability of 1.9% for developing a clinically significant leak in patients in whom mesh reinforcement was used, the strategy would continue to save costs if mesh were priced at ≤US$1804.

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh reinforcement decreases clinically significant pancreatic leaks. Despite the additional cost of mesh reinforcement, the use of mesh reinforcement results in overall cost savings for the health care system because of the resultant decrease in the occurrence of clinically significant leaks.