Cost‐effectiveness analysis of different screening strategies for helicobacter pylori infection in Iran: A model‐based evaluation

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends assessing screening for helicobacter pylori infection to lower gastric cancer (GC) rates. Therefore, we carried out a study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different H. pylori screening approaches in Iran. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a Markov model with a 50-year time horizon and health system perspective to compare four H. pylori screening strategies (endoscopy, serology, urea breath test [UBT], stool antigen test [SAT]) to no screening in the population aged 20 years and older in Iran. Model parameters were extracted from primary data and published studies. Cost data also came from medical records of 120 patients at different stages of GC. We calculated costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for each strategy. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) using Monte Carlo simulation tested the model's robustness. All analyses were done in TreeAge Pro 2020. RESULTS: All screening strategies provided more QALYs compared to no screening. Base-case analysis found the UBT strategy was the most cost-effective, with an ICER of 101,106,261.5 Iranian rial (IRR) per QALY gained, despite being more costly. No screening and endoscopy were dominated strategies, meaning they had higher costs but provided fewer effectiveness compared to other options. PSA showed at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 316,112,349 IRR (Iran's GDP per capita) per QALY, UBT was the optimal strategy in 57.1% of iterations. CONCLUSION: This cost-effectiveness analysis found that screening for H. pylori may be cost-effective in Iran. Among the 4 screening strategies examined, UBT was the most cost-effective approach. Further studies should do cost-effectiveness analyses for specific age groups to optimize the benefits achieved with limited resources.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.