Choice of long-term strategy for the management of patients with severe esophagitis: a cost-utility analysis.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Omeprazole has shown remarkable efficacy and safety in the treatment of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD); similarly, laparoscopic techniques have allowed less morbidity in patients undergoing fundoplication procedures. Concerns about the long-term cost and safety of both strategies have prompted a debate of their role in long-term management of patients with severe erosive esophagitis. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed to compare two strategies: laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) vs. omeprazole. A two-stage Markov model was used to obtain cost and efficacy estimates; all estimates were discounted at 3% per year. The time horizon was 5 years. Sensitivity analyses were performed on all relevant variables. RESULTS: Both strategies were similarly effective (4.33 quality-adjusted life years per patient), with omeprazole less expensive than LNF ($6053 vs. $9482 per patient). At 10 years, LNF and omeprazole costs were similar. Efficacy estimates were extremely sensitive to changes in quality of life associated with postoperative symptoms and long-term use of medication. CONCLUSIONS: Medical therapy is the preferred treatment strategy for most patients with severe erosive esophagitis. Individuals with a long life expectancy are good candidates for LNF if postoperative morbidity is low and GERD symptoms remain abated for many years.[1]References
- Choice of long-term strategy for the management of patients with severe esophagitis: a cost-utility analysis. Heudebert, G.R., Marks, R., Wilcox, C.M., Centor, R.M. Gastroenterology (1997) [Pubmed]
Annotations and hyperlinks in this abstract are from individual authors of WikiGenes or automatically generated by the WikiGenes Data Mining Engine. The abstract is from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.About WikiGenesOpen Access LicencePrivacy PolicyTerms of Useapsburg
