Background and aim: We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different colonoscopy intervals among average-risk (5 vs 10 years) and high-risk (1 vs 3 years) southern Chinese populations.
Methods: We constructed a Markov model with a hypothetical population of 100 000 individuals aged 50-85 years. Average risk was defined as 1-2 non-advanced adenomas (tubular adenoma sized < 10 mm without high-grade dysplasia). High risk was defined as ≥ 3 non-advanced adenomas or any advanced adenoma (adenoma sized ≥ 10 mm, with high-grade dysplasia, or with villous/tubulovillous histology). Three strategies were compared: a 5/1 strategy (average-risk subjects: 5-year interval; high-risk subjects: 1-year interval), a 10/3 strategy, and a control strategy (a 10/10 strategy). Costs (US dollar), quality-adjusted-life-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net health benefit were calculated. If the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of one strategy against another was less than willingness-to-pay ($24 302 US/quality-adjusted-life-years), the strategy was more cost-effective than another.
Results: Compared with the 10/3 strategy, the 5/1 strategy involved more costs and effects (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $40 044 US/quality-adjusted life-years). When the 10/10 strategy was regarded as the control, the 5/1 strategy had a higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratio than the 10/3 strategy ($26 056 vs $10 344 US/quality-adjusted life-years). Furthermore, the 10/3 strategy had the highest net health benefit.
Conclusions: A 10/3 interval was more cost-effective than a 5/1 interval. From an economic perspective, our findings supported a 10-year interval for average-risk individuals and a 3-year interval for high-risk subjects. The findings could help form the optimal colonoscopy interval for average-risk and high-risk patients.
Keywords: Colonoscopy; Cost; Effectiveness; Polypectomy; Surveillance interval.
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology published by Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.