Cost-effectiveness of gastroscopy

In a health economics perspective, no other decision area in gastroenterology has been more debated than the role of gastroscopy in dyspepsia. Cost-effectiveness analyses correlate costs with health outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of a diagnostic strategy must be compared to that of a competing strategy to produce useful information. This review examines the cost-effectiveness of gastroscopy in the management of dyspeptic patients, in particular in relation to the competing strategies of deferred referral guided by the outcome of either empirical antisccretory medication or of a non-invasive Helicobacter pylori test. Estimates of costs of gastroscopy differ widely. Cost estimates are usually much lower in European countries compared to the US. This is probably mainly due to differences in the calculations and in the payer perspective used. Cost-effectiveness analyses in dyspepsia management and the role of gastroscopy are difficult to interpret and impossible to compare due to a lack of uniformity in designing, measuring and reporting costs and health-care related outcome. Compared to empirical acid inliibition and to a test-and-scope strategy initial endoscopy is probably cost-effective -at least in Europe. Based on preliminary findings from clinical trials and from decision analyses a test-and-eradicate management strategy in young dyspeptic patients without warning symptoms seems to be cost-effective compared to early endoscopy. Implementing a test-and-eradicate strategy in primary care will probably save endoscopies without harmful effects. In view of the rapidly changing epidemiology of Helicobacter pylori infection in the Western world the long-term effects of such a policy should be monitored closely.