Cargando…

Cost-effectiveness modelling of use of urea breath test for the management of Helicobacter pylori-related dyspepsia and peptic ulcer in the UK

OBJECTIVE: Clinical data comparing diagnostic strategies in the management of Helicobacter pylori-associated diseases are limited. Invasive and noninvasive diagnostic tests for detecting H. pylori infection are used in the clinical care of patients with dyspeptic symptoms. Modelling studies might he...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pritchard, D. Mark, Bornschein, Jan, Beales, Ian, Beresniak, Ariel, Salhi, Hocine, Malfertheiner, Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8268888/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34244244
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2021-000685
_version_ 1783720456137736192
author Pritchard, D. Mark
Bornschein, Jan
Beales, Ian
Beresniak, Ariel
Salhi, Hocine
Malfertheiner, Peter
author_facet Pritchard, D. Mark
Bornschein, Jan
Beales, Ian
Beresniak, Ariel
Salhi, Hocine
Malfertheiner, Peter
author_sort Pritchard, D. Mark
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Clinical data comparing diagnostic strategies in the management of Helicobacter pylori-associated diseases are limited. Invasive and noninvasive diagnostic tests for detecting H. pylori infection are used in the clinical care of patients with dyspeptic symptoms. Modelling studies might help to identify the most cost-effective strategies. The objective of the study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of a ‘test-and-treat’ strategy with the urea breath test (UBT) compared with other strategies, in managing patients with H. pylori-associated dyspepsia and preventing peptic ulcer in the UK. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness models compared four strategies: ‘test-and-treat’ with either UBT or faecal antigen test (FAT), ‘endoscopy-based strategy’ and ‘symptomatic treatment’. A probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a simulation model in order to identify probabilities and costs associated with relief of dyspepsia symptoms (over a 4-week time horizon) and with prevention of peptic ulcers (over a 10-year time horizon). Clinical and cost inputs to the model were derived from routine medical practice in the UK. RESULTS: For relief of dyspepsia symptoms, ‘test-and-treat’ strategies with either UBT (€526/success) and FAT (€518/success) were the most cost-effective strategies compared with ‘endoscopy-based strategy’ (€1317/success) and ‘symptomatic treatment’ (€1 029/success). For the prevention of peptic ulcers, ‘test-and-treat’ strategies with either UBT (€208/ulcer avoided/year) or FAT (€191/ulcer avoided/year) were the most cost-effective strategies compared with ‘endoscopy-based strategy’ (€717/ulcer avoided/year) and ‘symptomatic treatment’ (€651/ulcer avoided/year) (1 EUR=0,871487 GBP at the time of the study). CONCLUSION: ‘Test-and-treat’ strategies with either UBT or FAT are the most cost-effective medical approaches for the management of H. pylori-associated dyspepsia and the prevention of peptic ulcer in the UK. A ‘test-and-treat’ strategy with UBT has comparable cost-effectiveness outcomes to the current standard of care using FAT in the UK.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8268888
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82688882021-07-23 Cost-effectiveness modelling of use of urea breath test for the management of Helicobacter pylori-related dyspepsia and peptic ulcer in the UK Pritchard, D. Mark Bornschein, Jan Beales, Ian Beresniak, Ariel Salhi, Hocine Malfertheiner, Peter BMJ Open Gastroenterol Helicobacter Pylori OBJECTIVE: Clinical data comparing diagnostic strategies in the management of Helicobacter pylori-associated diseases are limited. Invasive and noninvasive diagnostic tests for detecting H. pylori infection are used in the clinical care of patients with dyspeptic symptoms. Modelling studies might help to identify the most cost-effective strategies. The objective of the study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of a ‘test-and-treat’ strategy with the urea breath test (UBT) compared with other strategies, in managing patients with H. pylori-associated dyspepsia and preventing peptic ulcer in the UK. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness models compared four strategies: ‘test-and-treat’ with either UBT or faecal antigen test (FAT), ‘endoscopy-based strategy’ and ‘symptomatic treatment’. A probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a simulation model in order to identify probabilities and costs associated with relief of dyspepsia symptoms (over a 4-week time horizon) and with prevention of peptic ulcers (over a 10-year time horizon). Clinical and cost inputs to the model were derived from routine medical practice in the UK. RESULTS: For relief of dyspepsia symptoms, ‘test-and-treat’ strategies with either UBT (€526/success) and FAT (€518/success) were the most cost-effective strategies compared with ‘endoscopy-based strategy’ (€1317/success) and ‘symptomatic treatment’ (€1 029/success). For the prevention of peptic ulcers, ‘test-and-treat’ strategies with either UBT (€208/ulcer avoided/year) or FAT (€191/ulcer avoided/year) were the most cost-effective strategies compared with ‘endoscopy-based strategy’ (€717/ulcer avoided/year) and ‘symptomatic treatment’ (€651/ulcer avoided/year) (1 EUR=0,871487 GBP at the time of the study). CONCLUSION: ‘Test-and-treat’ strategies with either UBT or FAT are the most cost-effective medical approaches for the management of H. pylori-associated dyspepsia and the prevention of peptic ulcer in the UK. A ‘test-and-treat’ strategy with UBT has comparable cost-effectiveness outcomes to the current standard of care using FAT in the UK. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8268888/ /pubmed/34244244 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2021-000685 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Helicobacter Pylori
Pritchard, D. Mark
Bornschein, Jan
Beales, Ian
Beresniak, Ariel
Salhi, Hocine
Malfertheiner, Peter
Cost-effectiveness modelling of use of urea breath test for the management of Helicobacter pylori-related dyspepsia and peptic ulcer in the UK
title Cost-effectiveness modelling of use of urea breath test for the management of Helicobacter pylori-related dyspepsia and peptic ulcer in the UK
title_full Cost-effectiveness modelling of use of urea breath test for the management of Helicobacter pylori-related dyspepsia and peptic ulcer in the UK
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness modelling of use of urea breath test for the management of Helicobacter pylori-related dyspepsia and peptic ulcer in the UK
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness modelling of use of urea breath test for the management of Helicobacter pylori-related dyspepsia and peptic ulcer in the UK
title_short Cost-effectiveness modelling of use of urea breath test for the management of Helicobacter pylori-related dyspepsia and peptic ulcer in the UK
title_sort cost-effectiveness modelling of use of urea breath test for the management of helicobacter pylori-related dyspepsia and peptic ulcer in the uk
topic Helicobacter Pylori
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8268888/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34244244
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2021-000685
work_keys_str_mv AT pritcharddmark costeffectivenessmodellingofuseofureabreathtestforthemanagementofhelicobacterpylorirelateddyspepsiaandpepticulcerintheuk
AT bornscheinjan costeffectivenessmodellingofuseofureabreathtestforthemanagementofhelicobacterpylorirelateddyspepsiaandpepticulcerintheuk
AT bealesian costeffectivenessmodellingofuseofureabreathtestforthemanagementofhelicobacterpylorirelateddyspepsiaandpepticulcerintheuk
AT beresniakariel costeffectivenessmodellingofuseofureabreathtestforthemanagementofhelicobacterpylorirelateddyspepsiaandpepticulcerintheuk
AT salhihocine costeffectivenessmodellingofuseofureabreathtestforthemanagementofhelicobacterpylorirelateddyspepsiaandpepticulcerintheuk
AT malfertheinerpeter costeffectivenessmodellingofuseofureabreathtestforthemanagementofhelicobacterpylorirelateddyspepsiaandpepticulcerintheuk