AIM:To compare the costs and effectiveness of no screening and no eradication therapy, the population- based Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) serology screening with eradication therapy and 13C-Urea breath test (UBT) wi...AIM:To compare the costs and effectiveness of no screening and no eradication therapy, the population- based Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) serology screening with eradication therapy and 13C-Urea breath test (UBT) with eradication therapy. METHODS:A Markov model simulation was carried out in all 237 900 Chinese males with age between 35 and 44 from the perspective of the public healthcare provider in Singapore. The main outcome measures were the costs, number of gastric cancer cases prevented, life years saved, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained from screening age to death. The uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness ratio was addressed by one-way sensitivity analyses. RESULTS:Compared to no screening, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $16 166 per life year saved or $13 571 per QALY gained for the serology screening, and $38 792 per life year saved and $32 525 per QALY gained for the UBT. The ICER was $477 079 per life year saved or $390 337 per QALY gained for the UBT compared to the serology screening. The cost- effectiveness of serology screening over the UBT was robust to most parameters in the model. CONCLUSION:The population-based serologyscreening for H pylori was more cost-effective than the UBT in prevention of gastric cancer in Singapore Chinese males.展开更多
文摘AIM:To compare the costs and effectiveness of no screening and no eradication therapy, the population- based Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) serology screening with eradication therapy and 13C-Urea breath test (UBT) with eradication therapy. METHODS:A Markov model simulation was carried out in all 237 900 Chinese males with age between 35 and 44 from the perspective of the public healthcare provider in Singapore. The main outcome measures were the costs, number of gastric cancer cases prevented, life years saved, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained from screening age to death. The uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness ratio was addressed by one-way sensitivity analyses. RESULTS:Compared to no screening, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $16 166 per life year saved or $13 571 per QALY gained for the serology screening, and $38 792 per life year saved and $32 525 per QALY gained for the UBT. The ICER was $477 079 per life year saved or $390 337 per QALY gained for the UBT compared to the serology screening. The cost- effectiveness of serology screening over the UBT was robust to most parameters in the model. CONCLUSION:The population-based serologyscreening for H pylori was more cost-effective than the UBT in prevention of gastric cancer in Singapore Chinese males.
