Search

Background: Propofol for colonoscopy is largely administered by anesthesiologists or anesthesiology nurses in the United States (US) and Europe. Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol (EDP) by nonanesthesiologists has recently been proposed, with potential savings of anesthetist reimbursement costs. We aimed to assess potential EDP-related benefit in a screening setting., Methods: In a Markov model the total number of screening and follow-up colonoscopies in a cohort of 100 000 US subjects were estimated. Anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy was compared with an EDP strategy. Model outputs were projected onto the 50 - 80-year-old US population, assuming 27 % as the current uptake for colonoscopy screening. Anesthetist costs were estimated using the mean reimbursement for the corresponding Medicare code (≥ 65-year-olds) and from commercial insurance information (50 - 64-year-olds). The proportion of colonoscopies with anesthesiologist assistance was estimated from the Medicare database. Mean nurse salary was used to estimate the cost of a 2-week EDP training. The absolute number of US endoscopists was estimated by inflating by 33 % the number of board-certified gastroenterologists. No EDP mortality was assumed in the reference scenario, and 0.0008 % mortality in the sensitivity analysis. US census data were adopted. Analogous inputs were used for France to assess EDP-related benefit in a European country., Results: EDP training for 17 166 nurses (one for each US endoscopist) showed a cost of $ 47 million. Cost estimates for anesthesiologist assistance for colonoscopy were $ 95 (Medicare) and $ 450 (non-Medicare commercial insurance), with 34.8 % of colonoscopies requiring anesthesiologist assistance. US implementation of an EDP policy showed a 10-year saving of $ 3.2 billion (Monte Carlo analysis 5 - 95 % percentiles $ 2.7 - $ 11.9 billion). In the sensitivity analysis, assuming 50 % of colonoscopies were anesthetist-assisted showed an EDP benefit of $ 4.6 billion. Assuming a 0.0008 % mortality rate, the incremental cost - effectiveness of anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy versus an EDP policy was $ 1.5 million per life-year gained, supporting EDP as the optimal choice. A 31-fold increase of EDP-related mortality or a 17-fold cost reduction for anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy was required for EDP to become not cost-effective in this scenario. Implementation of an EDP policy in France, within a guaiac-fecal occult blood test (g-FOBT) screening program, was estimated to save € 0.8 billion in 10 years., Conclusions: The absolute economic benefit of EDP implementation in a screening setting is probably substantial with 10-year savings of $3.2 billion in the US and €0.8 billion in France. The impact of an eventual EDP-related mortality on EDP cost - effectiveness seems marginal. The huge economic and medical resources entailed by anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy could be more efficiently invested in other clinical fields., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in France. Only scanty data on cost-effectiveness of CRC screening in Europe are available, generating uncertainty over its efficiency. Although immunochemical fecal tests (FIT) and guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests (g-FOBT) have been shown to be cost-effective in France, cost-effectiveness of endoscopic screening has not yet been addressed., Methods: Cost-effectiveness of screening strategies using colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), FIT and g-FOBT were compared using a Markov model. A 40 % adherence rate was assumed for all strategies. Colonoscopy costs included anesthesiologist assistance. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Probabilistic and value-of-information analyses were used to estimate the expected benefit of future research. A third-payer perspective was adopted., Results: In the reference case analysis, FIT repeated every year was the most cost-effective strategy, with an ICER of €48165 per life-year gained vs. FIT every 2 years, which was the next most cost-effective strategy. Although CCE every 5 years was as effective as FIT 1-year, it was not a cost-effective alternative. Colonoscopy repeated every 10 years was substantially more costly, and slightly less effective than FIT 1-year. When projecting the model outputs onto the French population, the least (g-FOBT 2-years) and most (FIT 1-year) effective strategies reduced the absolute number of annual CRC deaths from 16037 to 12916 and 11217, respectively, resulting in an annual additional cost of €26 million and €347 million, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that FIT 1-year was the optimal choice in 20% of the simulated scenarios, whereas sigmoidoscopy 5-years, colonoscopy, and FIT 2-years were the optimal choices in 40%, 26%, and 14%, respectively., Conclusions: A screening program based on FIT 1-year appeared to be the most cost-effective approach for CRC screening in France. However, a substantial uncertainty over this choice is still present., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)