Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2022; 10(08): E1053-E1064
DOI: 10.1055/a-1858-0945
Original article

Comparative cost-effectiveness of three post-radiofrequency ablation surveillance intervals for Barrett’s esophagus

Shyam Menon 
1   The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, UK
,
Richard Norman
2   Curtin University, Perth, Australia
,
Jayan Mannath
3   University Hospital of Coventry, Coventry, UK
,
Prasad G. Iyer
4   Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States
,
Krish Ragunath
2   Curtin University, Perth, Australia
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Referred to by:

Follow-up after successful endoscopic therapy for early Barrett’s neoplasia: Is it time to talk money yet?Endosc Int Open 2022; 10(10): E1331-E1332
DOI: 10.1055/a-1931-3841

Abstract

Background and study aims Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (BE) has resulted in a paradigm shift in the management of BE. Despite widespread adoption of RFA, the optimal surveillance interval of the ablated zone is unclear.

Methods A patient-level discrete time cycle Markov model was developed to model clinical surveillance strategies post-RFA for BE. Three surveillance strategies were examined: the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) strategy based on ACG guidelines for post-RFA surveillance, the Cotton strategy based on data from the USA and UK RFA registries, and the UK strategy in line with surveillance strategies in UK centers. Monte-Carlo deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed over 10,000 iterations (i. e., representing 10,000 patient journeys) and sensitivity analyses were carried out on the variables used in the model.

Results On base-case analysis, the ACG strategy was the most cost-effective strategy, at a mean cost of £ 11,733 ($ 16,396) (standard deviation (SD) 1520.15) and a mean effectiveness of 12.86 (SD 0.07) QALYs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the ACG model was the most cost-effective strategy with a net monetary benefit (NMB) of £ 5,136 ($ 7177) (SD 241) compared to the UK strategy and a NMB of £ 7017 ($ 9,806) (SD 379) compared to the Cotton strategy. At a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of £ 20,000 ($ 27,949), the ACG model was superior to the other strategies as the most cost-effective strategy.

Conclusions A post-RFA surveillance strategy based on the ACG guidelines seems to be the most cost-effective surveillance option.



Publication History

Received: 14 November 2021

Accepted after revision: 19 May 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
20 May 2022

Article published online:
15 August 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Rastogi A, Puli S, El-Serag HB. et al. Incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with Barrettʼs esophagus and high-grade dysplasia: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 394-398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Curvers WL, ten Kate FJ, Krishnadath KK. et al. Low-grade dysplasia in Barrettʼs esophagus: overdiagnosed and underestimated. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1523-1530
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Krishnamoorthi R, Singh S, Ragunathan K. et al. Factors associated with progression of Barrettʼs esophagus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 16: 1046-1055 e8
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Krishnamoorthi R, Mohan BP, Jayaraj M. et al. Risk of progression in Barrettʼs esophagus indefinite for dysplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 3-10 e3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Shaheen NJ, Sharma P, Overholt BF. et al. Radiofrequency ablation in Barrettʼs esophagus with dysplasia. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 2277-2288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Peery AF, Shaheen NJ. Esophagus: Endoscopic therapy for flat, dysplastic Barrett esophagus. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 8: 186-187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Small AJ, Araujo JL, Leggett CL. et al. Radiofrequency ablation is associated with decreased neoplastic progression in patients with Barrettʼs esophagus and confirmed low-grade dysplasia. Gastroenterology 2015; 149: 567-576 e3 quiz e13-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Fudman DI, Lightdale CJ, Poneros JM. et al. Positive correlation between endoscopist radiofrequency ablation volume and response rates in Barrettʼs esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 71-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Pouw RE, Klaver E, Phoa KN. et al. Radiofrequency ablation for low-grade dysplasia in Barrettʼs esophagus: long-term outcome of a randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 92: 569-574
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Sami SS, Ravindran A, Kahn A. et al. Timeline and location of recurrence following successful ablation in Barrettʼs oesophagus: an international multicentre study. Gut 2019; 68: 1379-1385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Haidry RJ, Butt MA, Dunn JM. et al. Improvement over time in outcomes for patients undergoing endoscopic therapy for Barrettʼs oesophagus-related neoplasia: 6-year experience from the first 500 patients treated in the UK patient registry. Gut 2015; 64: 1192-1199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Phoa KN, Pouw RE, Bisschops R. et al. Multimodality endoscopic eradication for neoplastic Barrett oesophagus: results of an European multicentre study (EURO-II). Gut 2016; 65: 555-562
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Haidry RJ, Lipman G, Banks MR. et al. Comparing outcome of radiofrequency ablation in Barrettʼs with high grade dysplasia and intramucosal carcinoma: a prospective multicenter UK registry. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 980-987
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Krishnamoorthi R, Borah B, Heien H. et al. Rates and predictors of progression to esophageal carcinoma in a large population-based Barrettʼs esophagus cohort. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 40-46 e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Fujii-Lau LL, Cinnor B, Shaheen N. et al. Recurrence of intestinal metaplasia and early neoplasia after endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrettʼs esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 2017; 5: E430-E449
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 van Munster S, Nieuwenhuis E, Weusten B. et al. Long-term outcomes after endoscopic treatment for Barrettʼs neoplasia with radiofrequency ablation +/- endoscopic resection: results from the national Dutch database in a 10-year period. Gut 2021; 71: 265-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Gupta M, Iyer PG, Lutzke L. et al. Recurrence of esophageal intestinal metaplasia after endoscopic mucosal resection and radiofrequency ablation of Barrettʼs esophagus: results from a US Multicenter Consortium. Gastroenterology 2013; 145: 79-86 e1
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Pasricha S, Bulsiewicz WJ, Hathorn KE. et al. Durability and predictors of successful radiofrequency ablation for Barrettʼs esophagus. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 1840-1847 e1
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG. ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Barrett’s Esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 30-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Reed C, Shaheen NJ. Management of Barrett esophagus following radiofrequency ablation. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 7: 377-386
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Cotton CC, Haidry R, Thrift AP. et al. Development of evidence-based surveillance intervals after radiofrequency ablation of Barrettʼs esophagus. Gastroenterology 2018; 155: 316-26 e6
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Sharma P, Shaheen NJ, Katzka D. et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Endoscopic Treatment of Barrettʼs Esophagus With Dysplasia and/or Early Cancer: Expert Review. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 760-769
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Rawlins M, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. Br Med J 2004; 329: 224-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Appleby J, Devlin N, Parkin D. NICEʼs cost effectiveness threshold. How high should it be?. Br Med J 2007; 335: 358-359
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Economics 2004; 13: 437-452
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Shaheen NJ, Kim HP, Bulsiewicz WJ. et al. Prior fundoplication does not improve safety or efficacy outcomes of radiofrequency ablation: results from the U.S. RFA Registry. J Gastrointest Surg 2013; 17: 21-28 discussion 8-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Solfisburg QS, Sami SS, Gabre J. et al. Clinical significance of recurrent gastroesophageal junction intestinal metaplasia after endoscopic eradication of Barrettʼs esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 93: 1250-1257 e3
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Eurostat. Revision of the European Standard Population. Report of Eurostatʼs task force. Luxembourg: European Commission; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Qumseya BJ, Wani S, Desai M. et al. Adverse events after radiofrequency ablation in patients with Barrettʼs esophagus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 14: 1086-1095 e6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Adverse events of upper GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 707-718
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Pollit V, Graham D, Leonard C. et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of endoscopic eradication therapy for management of dysplasia arising in patients with Barrettʼs oesophagus in the United Kingdom. Curr Med Res Opin 2019; 35: 805-815
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 NHSE. 2019/20 National Tariff Payment System. NHS England; 2019 https://www.england.nhs.uk/pay-syst/national-tariff/2019-20-payment-reform-proposals/
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Hur C, Choi SE, Rubenstein JH. et al. The cost effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation for Barrettʼs esophagus. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 567-575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Omidvari AH, Ali A, Hazelton WD. et al. Optimizing management of patients with Barrettʼs esophagus and low-grade or no dysplasia based on comparative modeling. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 9: 1961-1969
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Boger PC, Turner D, Roderick P. et al. A UK-based cost-utility analysis of radiofrequency ablation or oesophagectomy for the management of high-grade dysplasia in Barrettʼs oesophagus. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010; 32: 1332-1342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Brit Med Bull 2010; 96: 5-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 1977; 31: 716-721
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. National Institute of Health and Care Excellence: NICE; 2013
    Google Scholar