Search

Background: Aspirin may decrease colorectal cancer incidence, but its role as an adjunct to or substitute for screening has not been evaluated.Objective: To examine the potential cost-effectiveness of aspirin chemoprophylaxis in relation to screening.Design: Markov model.Data Sources: Literature on colorectal cancer epidemiology, screening, costs, and aspirin chemoprevention (1980-1999).Target Population: General U.S. population.Time Horizon: 50 to 80 years of age.Perspective: Third-party payer.Intervention: Aspirin therapy in patients screened with sigmoidoscopy every 5 years and fecal occult blood testing every year (FS/FOBT) or colonoscopy every 10 years (COLO).Outcome Measures: Discounted cost per life-year gained.Results Of Base-case Analysis: When a 30% reduction in colorectal cancer risk was assumed, aspirin increased costs and decreased life-years because of related complications as an adjunct to FS/FOBT and cost $149 161 per life-year gained as an adjunct to COLO. In patients already taking aspirin, screening with FS/FOBT or COLO cost less than $31 000 per life-year gained.Results Of Sensitivity Analysis: Cost-effectiveness estimates depended highly on the magnitude of colorectal cancer risk reduction with aspirin, aspirin-related complication rates, and the screening adherence rate in the population. However, when the model's inputs were varied over wide ranges, aspirin chemoprophylaxis remained generally non-cost-effective for patients who adhere to screening.Conclusions: In patients undergoing colorectal cancer screening, aspirin use should not be based on potential chemoprevention. Aspirin chemoprophylaxis alone cannot be considered a substitute for colorectal cancer screening. Public policy should focus on improving screening adherence, even in patients who are already taking aspirin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Testing has been advocated for all persons with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer to identify families with the Lynch syndrome, an autosomal dominant cancer-predisposition syndrome that is a paradigm for personalized medicine.Objective: To estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of strategies to identify the Lynch syndrome, with attention to sex, age at screening, and differential effects for probands and relatives.Design: Markov model that incorporated risk for colorectal, endometrial, and ovarian cancers.Data Sources: Published literature.Target Population: All persons with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer and their relatives.Time Horizon: Lifetime.Perspective: Third-party payer.Intervention: Strategies based on clinical criteria, prediction algorithms, tumor testing, or up-front germline mutation testing, followed by tailored screening and risk-reducing surgery.Outcome Measures: Life-years, cancer cases and deaths, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.Results Of Base-case Analysis: The benefit of all strategies accrued primarily to relatives with a mutation associated with the Lynch syndrome, particularly women, whose life expectancy could increase by approximately 4 years with hysterectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy and adherence to colorectal cancer screening recommendations. At current rates of germline testing, screening, and prophylactic surgery, the strategies reduced deaths from colorectal cancer by 7% to 42% and deaths from endometrial and ovarian cancer by 1% to 6%. Among tumor-testing strategies, immunohistochemistry followed by BRAF mutation testing was preferred, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,200 per life-year gained.Results Of Sensitivity Analysis: The number of relatives tested per proband was a critical determinant of both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, with testing of 3 to 4 relatives required for most strategies to meet a threshold of $50,000 per life-year gained. Immunohistochemistry followed by BRAF mutation testing was preferred in 59% of iterations in probabilistic sensitivity analysis at a threshold of $100,000 per life-year gained. Screening for the Lynch syndrome with immunohistochemistry followed by BRAF mutation testing only up to age 70 years cost $44,000 per incremental life-year gained compared with screening only up to age 60 years, and screening without an upper age limit cost $88,700 per incremental life-year gained compared with screening only up to age 70 years.Limitation: Other types of cancer, uncertain family pedigrees, and genetic variants of unknown significance were not considered.Conclusion: Widespread colorectal tumor testing to identify families with the Lynch syndrome could yield substantial benefits at acceptable costs, particularly for women with a mutation associated with the Lynch syndrome who begin regular screening and have risk-reducing surgery. The cost-effectiveness of such testing depends on the participation rate among relatives at risk for the Lynch syndrome.Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: A major health priority is to increase colorectal cancer screening, and colonoscopy has become an increasingly important method of screening. The Medicare program began coverage for colonoscopy for average risk individuals in 2001. OBJECTIVES: We sought to examine whether overall colorectal cancer screening increased over time and whether these increases were a result of increased utilization of all methods or a result of greater use of colonoscopy but reduced use of other methods, whether the enactment of Medicare coverage was associated with an increase in colonoscopy among Medicare enrollees, and whether these trends equally affected subpopulations. METHODS: We used nationally representative data from the 2000 and 2003 National Health Interview Surveys and analyzed data using used chi, difference-in-differences tests, and logistic regression analyses to examine whether screening rates differed between 2000 and 2003. RESULTS: The percentage of individuals being screened for colorectal cancer using any method increased modestly from 2000 to 2003 (3%), with increases a result of increased use of colonoscopy and a reduction in the use of other methods. Increases in colonoscopy use were significant among all populations except the insured, non-Medicare population with low incomes. Among Medicare enrollees with high/middle incomes, colonoscopy use increased 14% from 2000 to 2003 compared with an increase of only 7% among low-income groups, which was a significant difference (P < 0.01). Similarly, among insured, non-Medicare enrollees with high/middle incomes, colonoscopy use increased 11% from 2000 to 2003 compared with an increase of only 4% among low-income groups, which also was a significant difference (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal cancer screening utilization increased modestly from 2000 to 2003, with the increases that primarily were the result of increased colonoscopy use. Increases in colonoscopy use, however, were primarily among high/middle income groups. Although Medicare coverage may have indirectly facilitated the increase in colonoscopy, we could not determine that coverage directly increased screening rates. Screening rates remain modest and lower income individuals continue to be screened less. Topics for future research include approaches to facilitating screening among low-income individuals and evaluating the impact of policy coverage decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Visceral hypersensitivity may contribute to symptoms in functional dyspepsia. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) may be beneficial in functional gastrointestinal disorders. The aim of this study was to determine whether the SSRI sertraline affects gastric sensitivity and compliance in healthy humans. Ten healthy humans completed a 6-week randomized, double-blind, crossover trial of sertraline (50 mg day -1 ) vs. placebo. After each 2-week treatment, fullness, pain and nausea were rated at increasing gastric barostat distending pressures. Sensation thresholds above minimal distending pressure (MDP) were determined with a tracking method. Somatic sensory testing was performed by hand immersion in ice water. No differences were found between sertraline and placebo for symptoms as a function of distending pressure (fullness, P = 0.72; pain, P = 0.79; nausea, P = 0.41), gastric compliance (P = 0.15), median and interquartile range thresholds for first sensation [4.1 (3.5–5.7) vs. 6.2 (3.3–10.0) mmHg above MDP, P = 0.19] and pain [15.2 (8.3–21.0) vs. 15.3 (10.3–19.8) mmHg above MDP, P = 0.85], and median tolerance times for hand ice water immersion [27 (19–99) vs. 29 (20–180) s, P = 0.73]. In conclusion, sertraline had no effect on gastric sensitivity or compliance, or somatic pain tolerance in healthy humans. Studies are needed to assess the effects of SSRIs on visceral sensation and clinical symptoms in patients with functional dyspepsia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Visceral hypersensitivity may contribute to symptoms in functional dyspepsia. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) may be beneficial in functional gastrointestinal disorders. The aim of this study was to determine whether the SSRI sertraline affects gastric sensitivity and compliance in healthy humans. Ten healthy humans completed a 6-week randomized, double-blind, crossover trial of sertraline (50 mg day -1 ) vs. placebo. After each 2-week treatment, fullness, pain and nausea were rated at increasing gastric barostat distending pressures. Sensation thresholds above minimal distending pressure (MDP) were determined with a tracking method. Somatic sensory testing was performed by hand immersion in ice water. No differences were found between sertraline and placebo for symptoms as a function of distending pressure (fullness, P = 0.72; pain, P = 0.79; nausea, P = 0.41), gastric compliance (P = 0.15), median and interquartile range thresholds for first sensation [4.1 (3.5–5.7) vs. 6.2 (3.3–10.0) mmHg above MDP, P = 0.19] and pain [15.2 (8.3–21.0) vs. 15.3 (10.3–19.8) mmHg above MDP, P = 0.85], and median tolerance times for hand ice water immersion [27 (19–99) vs. 29 (20–180) s, P = 0.73]. In conclusion, sertraline had no effect on gastric sensitivity or compliance, or somatic pain tolerance in healthy humans. Studies are needed to assess the effects of SSRIs on visceral sensation and clinical symptoms in patients with functional dyspepsia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]