Cargando…

Colonoscopy in poorly prepped colons: a cost effectiveness analysis comparing standard of care to a new cleansing technology

BACKGROUND: The objective of this Markov model lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis was to evaluate a new medical device technology which minimizes redo colonoscopies on the outcomes of cost, quality of life, and aversion of colorectal cancers (CRC). METHODS: A new technology (PureVu® System) which...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Voigt, Jeffrey, Mosier, Michael, Gralnek, Ian M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8082895/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33926476
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12962-021-00277-5
_version_ 1783685924989698048
author Voigt, Jeffrey
Mosier, Michael
Gralnek, Ian M.
author_facet Voigt, Jeffrey
Mosier, Michael
Gralnek, Ian M.
author_sort Voigt, Jeffrey
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The objective of this Markov model lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis was to evaluate a new medical device technology which minimizes redo colonoscopies on the outcomes of cost, quality of life, and aversion of colorectal cancers (CRC). METHODS: A new technology (PureVu® System) which cleans inadequately prepped colons was evaluated using TreeAge 2019 software in patients who presented with inadequate prep in outpatient settings in the US. PureVu was compared to the standard of care (SOC). Peer reviewed literature was used to identify the CRC incidence cancers based on missing polyps. Costs for procedures were derived from 2019 Medicare and from estimated private payer reimbursements. Base case costs, sensitivity analysis and incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) were evaluated. The cost of PureVu was $750. RESULTS: Assuming a national average compliance rate of 60% for colonoscopy, the use of PureVu saved the healthcare system $833–$992/patient depending upon the insurer when compared to SOC. QALYs were also improved with PureVu mainly due to a lower incidence of CRCs. In sensitivity analysis, SOC becomes less expensive than PureVu when compliance to screening for CRC using colonoscopy is ≤ 28%. Also, in order for SOC to be less expensive than PureVu, the list price of PureVu would need to exceed $1753. In incremental cost effectiveness analysis, PureVu dominated SOC. CONCLUSION: Using the PureVu System to improve bowel prep can save the healthcare system $3.1–$3.7 billion per year, while ensuring a similar quality of life and reducing the incidence of CRCs. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12962-021-00277-5.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8082895
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80828952021-04-29 Colonoscopy in poorly prepped colons: a cost effectiveness analysis comparing standard of care to a new cleansing technology Voigt, Jeffrey Mosier, Michael Gralnek, Ian M. Cost Eff Resour Alloc Research BACKGROUND: The objective of this Markov model lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis was to evaluate a new medical device technology which minimizes redo colonoscopies on the outcomes of cost, quality of life, and aversion of colorectal cancers (CRC). METHODS: A new technology (PureVu® System) which cleans inadequately prepped colons was evaluated using TreeAge 2019 software in patients who presented with inadequate prep in outpatient settings in the US. PureVu was compared to the standard of care (SOC). Peer reviewed literature was used to identify the CRC incidence cancers based on missing polyps. Costs for procedures were derived from 2019 Medicare and from estimated private payer reimbursements. Base case costs, sensitivity analysis and incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) were evaluated. The cost of PureVu was $750. RESULTS: Assuming a national average compliance rate of 60% for colonoscopy, the use of PureVu saved the healthcare system $833–$992/patient depending upon the insurer when compared to SOC. QALYs were also improved with PureVu mainly due to a lower incidence of CRCs. In sensitivity analysis, SOC becomes less expensive than PureVu when compliance to screening for CRC using colonoscopy is ≤ 28%. Also, in order for SOC to be less expensive than PureVu, the list price of PureVu would need to exceed $1753. In incremental cost effectiveness analysis, PureVu dominated SOC. CONCLUSION: Using the PureVu System to improve bowel prep can save the healthcare system $3.1–$3.7 billion per year, while ensuring a similar quality of life and reducing the incidence of CRCs. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12962-021-00277-5. BioMed Central 2021-04-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8082895/ /pubmed/33926476 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12962-021-00277-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Voigt, Jeffrey
Mosier, Michael
Gralnek, Ian M.
Colonoscopy in poorly prepped colons: a cost effectiveness analysis comparing standard of care to a new cleansing technology
title Colonoscopy in poorly prepped colons: a cost effectiveness analysis comparing standard of care to a new cleansing technology
title_full Colonoscopy in poorly prepped colons: a cost effectiveness analysis comparing standard of care to a new cleansing technology
title_fullStr Colonoscopy in poorly prepped colons: a cost effectiveness analysis comparing standard of care to a new cleansing technology
title_full_unstemmed Colonoscopy in poorly prepped colons: a cost effectiveness analysis comparing standard of care to a new cleansing technology
title_short Colonoscopy in poorly prepped colons: a cost effectiveness analysis comparing standard of care to a new cleansing technology
title_sort colonoscopy in poorly prepped colons: a cost effectiveness analysis comparing standard of care to a new cleansing technology
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8082895/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33926476
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12962-021-00277-5
work_keys_str_mv AT voigtjeffrey colonoscopyinpoorlypreppedcolonsacosteffectivenessanalysiscomparingstandardofcaretoanewcleansingtechnology
AT mosiermichael colonoscopyinpoorlypreppedcolonsacosteffectivenessanalysiscomparingstandardofcaretoanewcleansingtechnology
AT gralnekianm colonoscopyinpoorlypreppedcolonsacosteffectivenessanalysiscomparingstandardofcaretoanewcleansingtechnology