Budget-impact model for colonoscopy cost calculation and comparison between 2 litre PEGASC and sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate or sodium phosphate oral bowel cleansing agents

Journal of Medical Economics

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 758-765

  Gruss, H J ^a   Cockett, A ^b   Leicester, R J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WITTEN HERDECKE   (Germany)

^b Keaton House   (United Kingdom)

^c ST GEORGE S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Budget impact; Cleansing; Colon preparation; Colonoscopy; Cost; Mucosa; PEG3350

Indexed keywords

ASCORBIC ACID; MACROGOL; MAGNESIUM CITRATE; PICOSULFATE SODIUM; SODIUM DIHYDROGEN PHOSPHATE;

ARTICLE; BUDGET; COLONOSCOPY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; COST CONTROL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HOSPITAL PATIENT; HUMAN; INTESTINE PREPARATION; LENGTH OF STAY; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; UNITED KINGDOM; VALIDITY;

BUDGETS; CATHARTICS; CITRIC ACID; COLONOSCOPY; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; DRUG CARRIERS; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MODELS, ECONOMIC; ORGANOMETALLIC COMPOUNDS; PHOSPHATES; PICOLINES; POLYETHYLENE GLYCOLS; QUESTIONNAIRES; STATE MEDICINE;

EID: 84862559662     PISSN: 13696998     EISSN: 1941837X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3111/13696998.2012.670173     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Palmer KR, Morris AI. A snapshot of colonoscopy practice in England: stimulus for improvement. Gut 2004;53:163-5 (Pubitemid 38125499)
2. Office for National Statistics. Cancer statistics-registration England, 1999. London: The Stationery Office 2002; series MB1 No. 30
3. Endoscopy Section Committee of the British Society of Gastroenterology. Future requirements for colonoscopy in Britain. Occasional report. Gut 1987;28:772-5
4. Corbett M, Chambers SL, Shadbolt B, et al. Colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer: the outcomes of two recruitment methods. MJA 2004; 181:423-7 (Pubitemid 39419747)
5. Ball JE, Osbourne J, Jowett S, et al. Quality improvement programme to achieve acceptable colonoscopy completion rates: prospective before and after study. BMJ 2004;329:665-7 (Pubitemid 39279288)
6. Lindsay DC, Freeman JG, Cobden I, et al. Should colonoscopy be the first investigation for colonic disease? BMJ 1988;296:167-9
7. Bowles CJA, Leicester R, Romaya C, et al. A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow? Gut 2004;53:277-83 (Pubitemid 38125519)
8. Rabeneck L, Paszat LF, Saskin R, et al. Association between colonoscopy rates and colorectal cancer mortality. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105:1627-32
9. Taylor SA, Halligan S, Goh V, et al. Optimizing bowel preparation for multidetector row CT colonography: effect of Citramag and Picolax. Clin Radiol 2003;58:723-32 (Pubitemid 37045703)
10. Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Latinovich DR, et al. Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97: 1696-700 (Pubitemid 34761391)
11. Ben-Horin S, Bar-Meir S, Avidan B. The impact of colon cleanliness assessment on endoscopists' recommendations for follow-up colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:2680-5 (Pubitemid 350179325)
12. Ell C, Fischbach W, Bronish HJ, et al. Randomized trial of low-volume PEG solution versus standard PEG electrolytes for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:883-93 (Pubitemid 351501088)
13. Bitoun A, Ponchon T, Barthet M, et al. Results of a prospective randomised multicentre controlled trial comparing a new 2-L ascorbic acid plus polyethylene glycol solution vs. sodium phosphate solution in patients undergoing elective colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006;24:1631-42 (Pubitemid 44915211)
14. Worthington J, Thyssen M, Chapman G, et al. A randomised controlled trial of a new 2 litre polyethylene glycol solution versus sodium picosulphate magnesium citrate solution for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy. Curr Med Res Opin 2008;24:481-8 (Pubitemid 351294397)
15. Belsey J, Epstein O, Heresbach D. Systematic review: oral bowel preparations for colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007;25:373-84 (Pubitemid 46184450)
16. Bini AJ, Rajapaksa RC, Weinshel EH. The findings and impact of nonrehydrated guaiac examination of the rectum (FINGER) study. A comparison of 2 methods of screening for colorectal cancer in asymptomatic average-risk patients. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:2022-6 (Pubitemid 29453589)
17. Pé rez Roldá n F, Gonzá lez Carro M, Legaz Huidobro LM, et al. Endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2004; 96:36-47
18. Lü ning TH, Keemers-Gels ME, Barendregt WB, et al. Colonoscopic perforations: a review of 30,366 patients. Surg Endosc 2007;21:994-7 (Pubitemid 47055793)
19. Levin TR, Zhao W, Conell, et al. Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system. Ann Intern Med 2006;145:880-6 (Pubitemid 351639963)
20. Conner A, Tolan D, Hughes S, et al. Consensus guidelines for prescription and administration of oral bowel cleansing agents. 2009; www.rcr.ac.uk/docs/ radiology/pdf/oral-bowel-cleansing-guidelines.pdf
21. Belsey J, Epstein O, Heresbach D. Systematic review: adverse event reports for oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2009;29:15-28
22. Barkun A, Chiba N, Enns R, et al. Commonly used preparations for colonoscopy: efficacy, tolerability and safety - a Canadian Association of Gastroenterology position paper. Can J Gastroenterol 2006;20:699-710 (Pubitemid 44941816)
23. Belsey J, Crosta C, Epstein O, et al. Meta-analysis: the relative efficacy of oral bowel preparations for colonoscopy 1985-2010. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012;35:222-37