Romagnuolo Joseph, Meier Michael A, Sadowski Daniel C
Division of Gastroenterology, Foothills Hospital, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Ann Surg. 2002 Aug;236(2):191-202. doi: 10.1097/00000658-200208000-00007.
To compare the cost and utility of healing and maintenance regimens of omeprazole and laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) in the framework of the Canadian medical system.
Medical therapy with proton pump inhibitors for endoscopically proven reflux esophagitis is a safe and effective treatment option. Of late, the surgical treatment of choice for this disease has become LNF.
The authors' base case was a 45-year-old man with erosive reflux esophagitis refractory to H2-blockers. A cost-utility analysis was performed comparing the two strategies. A two-stage Markov model (healing and maintenance phases) was used to estimate costs and utilities with a time horizon of 5 years. Discounted direct costs were estimated from the perspective of a provincial health ministry, and discounted quality-of-life estimates were derived from the medical literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model to the authors' assumptions and to determine thresholds. A Monte Carlo simulation of 10,000 patients was used to estimate variances and 95% interpercentile ranges.
For the 5-year period studied, LNF was less expensive than omeprazole (3519.89 dollars vs. 5464.87 dollars per patient) and became the more cost-effective option at 3.3 years of follow-up. The authors found that 20 mg/day omeprazole would have to cost less than 38.60 dollars per month before medical therapy became cost effective; conversely, the cost of LNF would have to be more than 5,273.70 dollars or the length of stay more than 4.2 days for medical therapy to be cost effective. Estimates of quality-adjusted life-years did not differ significantly between the two treatment options, and the incremental cost for medical therapy was 129,665 dollars per quality-adjusted life-years gained.
For patients with severe esophagitis, LNF is a cost-effective alternative to long-term maintenance therapy with proton pump inhibitors.
在加拿大医疗体系框架内,比较奥美拉唑与腹腔镜下尼森胃底折叠术(LNF)的愈合及维持治疗方案的成本和效用。
对于经内镜证实的反流性食管炎,使用质子泵抑制剂进行药物治疗是一种安全有效的治疗选择。近来,这种疾病的首选手术治疗方法已变为LNF。
作者的基础病例是一名45岁患有糜烂性反流性食管炎且对H2阻滞剂治疗无效的男性。对这两种策略进行了成本效用分析。采用两阶段马尔可夫模型(愈合期和维持期)来估计成本和效用,时间跨度为5年。从省级卫生部的角度估算贴现后的直接成本,贴现后的生活质量估计值则源自医学文献。进行敏感性分析以检验模型对作者假设的稳健性并确定阈值。对10000名患者进行蒙特卡洛模拟以估计方差和95%的百分位数区间。
在所研究的5年期间,LNF比奥美拉唑成本更低(每位患者分别为3519.89美元和5464.87美元),并且在随访3.3年后成为更具成本效益的选择。作者发现,在药物治疗具有成本效益之前,每天20毫克的奥美拉唑每月成本必须低于38.60美元;相反,LNF的成本必须超过5273.70美元或住院时间超过4.2天,药物治疗才具有成本效益。两种治疗方案的质量调整生命年估计值差异不显著,药物治疗每获得一个质量调整生命年的增量成本为129665美元。
对于患有严重食管炎的患者,LNF是质子泵抑制剂长期维持治疗的一种具有成本效益的替代方案。