FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2978479661> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2978479661 endingPage "S604" @default.
• W2978479661 startingPage "S604" @default.
• W2978479661 abstract "Purpose: Management of patients with refractory GERD remains unsatisfactory. Recent trials of LES-EST (EndoStim® LES Stimulator, EndoStim BV, Netherlands) has been encouraging (Am J Gastro 2011; 106: S6). LES-EST offers a minimally invasive, safe and effective treatment for GERD. We performed a CEA of LES-EST for the long-term management of refractory GERD. Methods: In a third-party-payer perspective Markov decision analysis model, in a cohort of refractory GERD patients (incomplete symptom response on bid PPI) 3 mutually exclusive, competing strategies were examined. Strategy I, patients followed on bid PPI, no additional intervention; Strategy II and III the patients were managed with LF or LES-EST, respectively. Discounted cost and utility values for long-term PPI therapy and LF were obtained from published information; for LES-EST, data were obtained from the results of the recent trials and when definite data (such as durability of response) was not available, uncertainty analyses were incorporated using second order Monte Carlo and threshold analyses. Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of different strategies was the main outcome measure, the model time horizon was 10 years given that published information on outcomes of LF is limited to 10 years and the minimum battery life of the stimulator is 10 years. The model was biased against LES-EST by incorporating the most favorable reported rates of primary success, complication and durability of LF. Results: In the baseline analysis, LES-EST (strategy III) dominated LF (strategy II), while ICER of bid PPI (strategy I) was > $90K per QALY (Table). Compared to LF, odds ratio of being completely off PPI with LES-EST was 5.8 (95% CI, 5.4-6.2). Threshold analyses showed cost of PPI and EndoStim® LES stimulator, and % patients in the cohort with incomplete control of GERD symptoms on PPI are the critical determinants of CEA of LES-EST.Table: Cost effectiveness analysisConclusion: LES-EST for management of refractory GERD is dominant strategy (less costly and more effective) compared to LF and is the preferred strategy compared to PPI in long-term cost-effectiveness. Longer-term clinical data on LES-EST is needed to conclusively establish its effectiveness for the treatment of refractory GERD.Figure: [1511] Sensitivity analysis (2-way) comparing cost of LES-EST with cost of LF with star showing coordinates of baseline estimates.Disclosure: A. Das - Grant/Research Support. L. Rodriguez - Grant/Research Support. P. Siersema - Grant/Research Support. This research was supported by an industry grant from EndoStim, BV, The Hague, Netherland." @default.
• W2978479661 created "2019-10-10" @default.
• W2978479661 creator A5014895890 @default.
• W2978479661 creator A5043086857 @default.
• W2978479661 creator A5064322940 @default.
• W2978479661 date "2012-10-01" @default.
• W2978479661 modified "2023-10-05" @default.
• W2978479661 title "A Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) of Lower Esophageal Sphincter (LES) Electrical Stimulation Therapy (EST), Laparoscopic Fundoplication (LF) and Proton Pump Inhibitor (PPI) Therapy for Management of Refractory GERD" @default.
• W2978479661 doi "https://doi.org/10.14309/00000434-201210001-01511" @default.
• W2978479661 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2978479661 type Work @default.
• W2978479661 sameAs 2978479661 @default.
• W2978479661 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2978479661 countsByYear W29784796612013 @default.
• W2978479661 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2978479661 hasAuthorship W2978479661A5014895890 @default.
• W2978479661 hasAuthorship W2978479661A5043086857 @default.
• W2978479661 hasAuthorship W2978479661A5064322940 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConcept C142424586 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConcept C2777014526 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConcept C2779134260 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConcept C2781025758 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConcept C3018799001 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConcept C43270747 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConcept C72563966 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConcept C87355193 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConceptScore W2978479661C121332964 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConceptScore W2978479661C126322002 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConceptScore W2978479661C141071460 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConceptScore W2978479661C142424586 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConceptScore W2978479661C2777014526 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConceptScore W2978479661C2779134260 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConceptScore W2978479661C2781025758 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConceptScore W2978479661C3018799001 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConceptScore W2978479661C43270747 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConceptScore W2978479661C71924100 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConceptScore W2978479661C72563966 @default.
• W2978479661 hasConceptScore W2978479661C87355193 @default.
• W2978479661 hasLocation W29784796611 @default.
• W2978479661 hasOpenAccess W2978479661 @default.
• W2978479661 hasPrimaryLocation W29784796611 @default.
• W2978479661 hasRelatedWork W1547895755 @default.
• W2978479661 hasRelatedWork W1981421177 @default.
• W2978479661 hasRelatedWork W2002764668 @default.
• W2978479661 hasRelatedWork W2383946322 @default.
• W2978479661 hasRelatedWork W2898667127 @default.
• W2978479661 hasRelatedWork W2976638663 @default.
• W2978479661 hasRelatedWork W3024403496 @default.
• W2978479661 hasRelatedWork W3035528201 @default.
• W2978479661 hasRelatedWork W4321457075 @default.
• W2978479661 hasRelatedWork W93207929 @default.
• W2978479661 hasVolume "107" @default.
• W2978479661 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2978479661 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2978479661 magId "2978479661" @default.
• W2978479661 workType "article" @default.