Abstract
Background
Helicobacter pylori (HP) eradication therapy is an efficient primary prevention method to reduce gastric cancer development. In Japan, biennial endoscopic screening for individuals aged 50 years and older is currently conducted as a national gastric cancer prevention program.
Aims
We aimed to evaluate which strategy was the most optimal and cost-effective among HP eradication strategy, annual, biennial, and triennial endoscopic screening, and no screening as a national gastric cancer prevention program.
Methods
We developed a state-transition model for HP eradication strategy, annual, biennial, and triennial endoscopic screening, and no screening using a healthcare payer perspective and a lifetime horizon. We targeted a hypothetical cohort of the Japanese population in their 20 s to 80 s. The main outcomes were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, gastric cancer cases, and deaths from gastric cancer. We performed one-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
Results
HP eradication strategy was more cost-effective than endoscopic screening at any interval in all age groups. Cost-effectiveness was sensitive to HP infection rate. Cost-effective acceptability curves by Monte Carlo simulations for 10,000 trials demonstrated that HP eradication strategy was 100% cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$50,000 per QALY gained in all age groups. Over a lifetime, HP eradication strategy saves US$28.07 billion, increases 37.16 million QALYs, prevents 4.47 million gastric cancer cases, and saves 319,870 lives from gastric cancer.
Conclusion
A population-based HP eradication strategy is optimal and cost-effective for a national gastric cancer prevention program in Japan, replacing the current secondary prevention-focused biennial endoscopic screening.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
More than half of the world's population is infected with Helicobacter pylori (HP) [1]. HP infection is responsible for 810,000 new cancer cases worldwide in 2018, mainly non-cardia gastric adenocarcinoma [2]. East Asia accounts for 480,000 cases of cancer attributable to HP infection, mostly in China (340,000 cases), Japan (100,000 cases), and South Korea (30,000 cases) [2]. HP infection causes chronic gastritis and leads to gastric cancer development. Gastric cancer has the fifth highest incidence rate and is the fourth major cause of cancer-related deaths in the world [3]. HP eradication therapy reduces gastric cancer development by healing the intragastric mucosal inflammation and halting the histological progression in patients with chronic atrophic gastritis, a pre-cancerous condition of the stomach [4,5,6,7], and follow-up endoscopy is necessary for early detection of gastric cancer after successful HP eradication therapy [8]. In 2014, an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) working group recommended that countries should explore the possibility of implementing population-based HP screening and treatment programs, after careful consideration at the regional level of disease burden, other health priorities, cost-effectiveness analysis, scientifically valid assessment of program processes, feasibility, effectiveness, and possible adverse effects [9]. The Taipei global consensus guidelines for screening and eradication of HP for gastric cancer prevention recommend that mass screening and eradication of HP should be considered in populations at higher risk of gastric cancer and that eradication therapy should be offered to individuals infected with HP [10].
Japan has the second-highest age-standardized rate for gastric cancer, one of the high-incidence countries in the world [3]. HP infection is estimated to be responsible for 98% of gastric cancer patients in Japan [11,12,13,14]. In February 2013, HP eradication therapy for patients with HP-associated chronic gastritis became covered by the national health insurance in Japan. The 2014 edition of Japanese guidelines for gastric cancer screening recommends biennial endoscopic screening for people aged 50 years and older for the population-based secondary prevention of gastric cancer [15]. Guidelines for the management of HP infection by the Japanese Society for Helicobacter Research recommend HP eradication therapy for gastric cancer prevention for all patients with HP infection [16]. Although the number of deaths from gastric cancer is gradually decreasing, the number of gastric cancer patients in their 80 s and older has not yet declined in Japan [17].
In this study, we aimed to evaluate which strategy was the most optimal and cost-effective among HP eradication strategy, annual, biennial, and triennial endoscopic screening, and no screening as a national gastric cancer prevention program.
Methods
Study Design and Model Structure
We constructed a state-transition model with a Markov cycle tree for five strategies: HP eradication strategy, annual endoscopic screening, biennial endoscopic screening, triennial endoscopic screening, and no screening using a healthcare payer perspective and a lifetime horizon. In this study, HP eradication strategy is defined as a primary prevention strategy in which individuals in their 20 s to 40 s do not perform post-eradication endoscopy and individuals in their 50 s to 80 s perform annual post-eradication endoscopy to detect early-stage gastric cancer [18]. A cycle length of one year was chosen. The half-cycle correction was applied. In the model, decision branches led directly to one Markov node per intervention strategy, and the first event was modeled within the Markov cycle tree (Fig. 1). The current national gastric cancer prevention program in Japan is no screening for individuals in their 20 s to 40 s, and biennial endoscopic screening for individuals in their 50 s to 80 s.
We used TreeAge Pro 2022 (TreeAge Software Inc., Williamstown, Mass.) for the decision-analytical calculations. As this was a modeling study with all inputs and parameters derived from the published literature and Japanese statistics, ethics approval was not required.
HP Eradication Strategy
An individual receives an HP antibody test. If the HP antibody test is negative, the individual doesn’t receive HP eradication therapy. If the HP antibody test is positive, the individual receives an endoscopy. If gastric cancer is detected by endoscopy, the individual receives the standard treatment for gastric cancer according to the Japanese guidelines for gastric cancer treatment: endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection treatment (ESD), surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy with palliative care according to cancer stage, stage I-IV [19]. If gastric cancer is not detected by endoscopy, the individual receives a first-line HP eradication therapy (Vonoprazan 40 mg/day, Clarithromycin 400 mg/day, and Amoxicillin 1500 mg/day for 7 days) and two stool antigen tests before and after eradication. If the first-line HP eradication therapy is unsuccessful, the individual receives a second-line HP eradication therapy (Vonoprazan 40 mg/day, Metronidazole 500 mg/day, and Amoxicillin 1500 mg/day for 7 days). Successful HP eradication therapy results in a change from the HP-positive state to the HP-negative state. The first-line and second-line HP eradication therapies are based on the guidelines for the management of HP infection by the Japanese Society for Helicobacter Research [16, 20]. The rationale for adding two stool antigen tests before and after eradication is based on the guidelines for the management of HP infection by the Japanese Society for Helicobacter Research [16], which requires one stool antigen test to confirm HP negativity before eradication if the HP antibody test is negative, and another stool antigen test for confirmation of HP negativity after eradication. Endoscopic surveillance is performed for the early detection of gastric cancer in individuals over 50 years of age after successful HP eradication therapy according to the guidelines for the management of HP infection by the Japanese Society for Helicobacter Research [16]. If both HP eradication therapies are unsuccessful, the HP-positive state remains until death.
Annual, Biennial, and Triennial Endoscopic Screening
An individual receives regular endoscopic screening once a year, once every two years, or once every three years. If gastric cancer is detected by endoscopy, the individual receives the standard treatment for gastric cancer according to the Japanese guidelines for gastric cancer treatment [19]. The compliance rate in gastric cancer screening (49.5%) was derived from Japanese cancer statistics and considered in the model [21].
No Screening
An individual has no opportunity to receive any gastric cancer screening.
Target Population
We targeted a hypothetical cohort of the Japanese population in their 20 s to 80 s. Children and adolescents (age < 20 y) were not included in the model. Age-specific HP infection rates were considered.
Epidemiologic Parameters and Clinical Probabilities
Epidemiologic parameters and clinical probabilities were collected using MEDLINE from 2000 to December 2022, the national census, and Japanese cancer statistics (Table 1) [6, 11,12,13,14, 22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29]. The age-dependent effects on gastric cancer incidence, HP infection rate, and mortality from other causes were taken into account in the model [22, 23, 29]. Relative risk rate of gastric cancer development after successful eradication, eradication success rates of HP eradication therapies, and compliance rates of HP eradication therapies were obtained from the literature [6, 24]. Stage-specific 5-year survival rates and stage-specific detection rates of gastric cancer were obtained from Japanese cancer statistics [22, 27]. The responsibility rate of HP infection for gastric cancer development was assumed to be 98% [11,12,13,14]. The sensitivity and specificity of endoscopy and HP antibody test were obtained from the literature [25, 28].
Costs
Costs were calculated based on the costs from the Japanese national fee schedule [30], and were adjusted to 2021 Japanese yen, using the medical care component of the Japanese consumer price index and were converted to US dollars, using the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) purchasing power parity rate in 2021 (US$1 = ¥96.76) (Table 1) [31]. The discount rate of costs was set at 3% per year [32, 33]. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and compared to a willingness-to-pay (WTP) level of US$50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained [34].
Health State Utilities
Health status was included to represent the possible eight clinical states: (i) no HP infection, (ii) HP infection, (iii) stage I gastric cancer; (iv) stage II gastric cancer; (v) stage III gastric cancer; (vi) stage IV gastric cancer, (vii) cured gastric cancer, and (viii) death (Fig. 1). Health state utilities were obtained from the literature and were calculated using utility weights (Table 1) [26]. The discount rate of utilities was set at 3% per year [32, 33].
The health outcomes were QALYs, ICERs, gastric cancer cases, and deaths from gastric cancer. We calculated age-specific cumulative lifetime health outcomes of HP eradication strategy compared to no screening for individuals aged 20 to 49 years and biennial endoscopic screening for individuals aged 50 to 89 years.
Sensitivity Analyses
We performed a one-way sensitivity analysis to determine which strategy was more cost-effective when we tested a single variable over a wide range of possible values while holding all other variables constant and a two-way sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of the overall results when the values of the two variables are varied simultaneously. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a second-order Monte-Carlo simulation for 10,000 trials was also performed to assess the impact of the uncertainty in the model on the base case estimates at a WTP threshold of US$50,000 per QALY gained [34]. The uncertainty had a beta distribution for clinical probabilities and accuracies, and a gamma distribution for costs.
Markov Cohort Analysis
In the Markov cohort analysis, we determined the cumulative lifetime probability of gastric cancer cases and gastric cancer deaths prevented by HP eradication strategy for individuals aged 20 to 49 years compared with no screening, and for individuals aged 50 to 89 years compared with biennial endoscopic screening. We calculated the number of cumulative lifetime gastric cancer cases and gastric cancer deaths prevented by HP eradication strategy for individuals aged 20 to 49 years compared with no screening and for individuals aged 50 to 89 years compared with biennial endoscopic screening, by multiplying the cumulative lifetime probability of gastric cancer cases and gastric cancer deaths prevented by the number of the Japanese population in 2022. The Japanese population in 2022 was obtained from Japanese population statistics; 12.58 million in their 20 s, 13.75 million in their 30 s, 17.59 million in their 40 s, 17.27 million in their 50 s, 15.06 million in their 60 s, 16.36 million in their 70 s, and 9.63 million in their 80 s [35].
Results
Base-Case Analysis
HP eradication strategy was the most cost-effective in all age groups (Table 2). The ICER of HP eradication strategy compared with no screening in the 20 s was US$24.4 per QALY gained. HP eradication strategy provided greater health benefits with significant cost savings than no screening in the 30 s and 40 s and biennial endoscopic screening in the 50 s to 80 s.
Sensitivity Analysis
The ICER tornado diagrams for HP eradication strategy versus no screening in 20-year-old individuals and for HP eradication strategy versus biennial endoscopic screening in 50-year-old individuals showed that the ICERs always remained below the WTP threshold of US$ 50,000 per QALY gained and that cost-effectiveness was not sensitive to the selected variables (Fig. 2a and b). Two-way sensitivity analyses for age baseline versus HP infection rate showed that HP eradication strategy was more cost-effective than no screening when HP infection rate was 0.032 or more in the 20 s, 0.043 or more in the 30 s, 0.059 or more in the 40 s, 0.079 or more in the 50 s, 0.105 or more in the 60 s, 0.143 or more in the 70 s, and 0.194 or more in the 80 s (Fig. 2c and d). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses using Monte-Carlo simulations for 10,000 trials demonstrated that HP eradication strategy was cost-effective 100% of the time at a WTP threshold of US$50,000 per QALY gained in all age groups (Fig. 2e).
Cumulative Lifetime Economic and Health Impacts
Over a lifetime, for the Japanese population in their 20 s to 80 s in 2022, HP eradication strategy could save US$28.07 billion, increase 37.16 million QALYs, prevent 4.47 million gastric cancer cases, and save 319,870 lives from gastric cancer compared to the current national gastric cancer prevention program (no screening for individuals aged 20 to 49 and biennial endoscopic screening for individuals aged 50 to 89) (Table 3).
Discussion
This study demonstrated that HP eradication strategy is more cost-effective with greater health benefits than no screening and endoscopic screening at any interval to prevent gastric cancer in Japan. The superiority of HP eradication strategy is mainly due to the high HP infection rates in the Japanese population, the evidence that HP eradication therapy for HP-positive patients reduces the incidence of gastric cancer by 46%, and the low cost of HP testing and eradication therapy compared to the cost of gastric cancer treatment. We previously showed that HP eradication strategy is more cost-effective than no screening [36, 37], upper gastrointestinal series [38], and endoscopic screening [38] for gastric cancer screening and that HP eradication strategy is more cost-effective than the proton pump inhibitors therapy strategy [39] for the management of peptic ulcers in high-risk populations. This study further demonstrated the definite cost-effectiveness advantage of HP eradication strategy over endoscopic screening, even when considering various intervals or the cost of follow-up endoscopy after successful HP eradication therapy at age 50 years or older.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study in the world to evaluate cumulative lifetime economic and health effects of HP eradication strategy compared to endoscopic screening with various intervals.
There are several cost-effectiveness studies of endoscopic screening compared to no screening for gastric cancer screening. Shah et al. demonstrated that one-time endoscopic screening for gastric cancer with ongoing surveillance of gastric preneoplasia is cost-effective for Japanese Americans ages 50 years or older in the USA and that biennial endoscopy is less effective and costlier [40]. Our study also showed that biennial endoscopic screening is not cost-effective for asymptomatic Japanese population aged 50 years. Ascherman et al. showed that biennial endoscopic screening is not cost-effective, while 5-year and 10-year endoscopic screening is cost-effective compared to no screening in the general Japanese population aged 40 years through 35 successive 1-year cycles of the model until age 75 [41]. Our study also demonstrated that endoscopic screening at the 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year intervals is not cost-effective in the Japanese population aged 40 years. Huang et al. found that the endoscopic screening program in Japan would be cost-effective when implemented between 50 and 75 years of age, with the screening repeated every 3 years, using a WTP threshold of US$50,000 per QALY gained [42]. We found that triennial endoscopic screening is more cost effective than no screening for individuals aged 55 to 81 years. Our results are consistent with those of previous studies. In addition, we have shown for the first time that HP eradication strategy is definitely more cost-effective than endoscopic screening at any interval for all age groups.
This study has several limitations. First, we did not consider reinfection or recurrence of HP infection in our model. The reinfection rate after HP eradication is very low. HP infection occurs mainly in childhood, and recurrence of HP infection after successful eradication is rare in adults [43]. Second, this study does not include non-medical indirect costs such as productivity losses. Third, the complications of endoscopy such as perforation and hemorrhage were not considered in our models. Endoscopy should be carefully performed by well-trained, competent, and thoughtful endoscopists, ensuring not only patient safety but also a high level of quality control. Fourth, the target population for HP eradication strategy did not include children. Fifth, the difference of gastric mucosal atrophy after successful HP eradication was not considered in the model. Biennial endoscopy for patients with mild-to-moderate gastric mucosal atrophy and annual endoscopy for patients with severe gastric mucosal atrophy appear to be cost-effective after successful HP eradication [8]. Further epidemiologic studies on gastric mucosal atrophy after successful HP eradication therapy are needed. Finally, there are differences in costs, HP infection rates, epidemiological parameters, and healthcare systems among countries. Further cost-effectiveness studies based on country-specific variations are needed.
In conclusion, HP eradication strategy provides greater health benefits with more significant cost savings than endoscopic screening at any interval and is absolutely recommended as a national gastric cancer screening program in Japan. The findings positively support the introduction of a population-based HP eradication strategy for primary prevention of gastric cancer instead of the current secondary prevention-oriented gastric cancer screening by endoscopy in high-incidence countries. Policy makers, physicians, and their respective governments should promote population-based HP eradication strategies as national gastric cancer policies to reduce gastric cancer morbidity and mortality in high-incidence countries.
Abbreviations
- HP:
-
Helicobacter pylori
- QALY:
-
Quality-adjusted life-year
- ICER:
-
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio
- WTP:
-
Willingness-to-pay
References
Hooi JKY, Lai WY, Ng WK et al. Global prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2017;153:420–429.
de Martel C, Georges D, Bray F, Ferlay J, Clifford GM. Global burden of cancer attributable to infections in 2018: a worldwide incidence analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8:e180–e190.
World Cancer Research Fund International. Stomach cancer statistics. https://www.wcrf.org/cancer-trends/stomach-cancer-statistics/. Accessed 5 December, 2022.
Fukase K, Kato M, Kikuchi S et al. Effect of eradication of Helicobacter pylori on incidence of metachronous gastric carcinoma after endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer: an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2008;372:392–397.
Choi IJ, Kook MC, Kim YI et al. Helicobacter pylori therapy for the prevention of metachronous gastric cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1085–1095.
Ford AC, Yuan Y, Moayyedi P. Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy to prevent gastric cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut. 2020;69:2113–2121.
Asaka M, Kato M, Sakamoto N. Roadmap to eliminate gastric cancer with Helicobacter pylori eradication and consecutive surveillance in Japan. J Gastroenterol. 2014;49:1–8.
Kowada A. Endoscopy Is Cost-Effective for Gastric Cancer Screening After Successful Helicobacter pylori Eradication. Dig Dis Sci. 2021;66:4220–4226.
IARC Helicobacter pylori Working Group. Helicobacter pylori eradication as a strategy for preventing gastric cancer. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC Working Group Reports, No. 8). https://publications.iarc.fr/Book-And-Report-Series/Iarc-Working-Group-Reports/-Em-Helicobacter-Pylori-Em-Eradication-As-A-Strategy-For-Preventing-Gastric-Cancer-2014 Accessed 5 December, 2022.
Liou JM, Malfertheiner P, Lee YC et al. Screening and eradication of Helicobacter pylori for gastric cancer prevention: the Taipei global consensus. Gut. 2020;69:2093–2112.
Matsuo T, Ito M, Takata S et al. Low prevalence of Helicobacter pylori-negative gastric cancer among Japanese. Helicobacter. 2011;16:415–419.
Sato C, Hirasawa K, Tateishi Y et al. Clinicopathological features of early gastric cancers arising in Helicobacter pylori uninfected patients. World J Gastroenterol. 2020;26:2618–2631.
Yamada A, Kaise M, Inoshita N et al. Characterization of Helicobacter pylori-Naïve early gastric cancers. Digestion. 2018;98:127–134.
Mizutani T, Araki H, Saigo C et al. Endoscopic and pathological characteristics of Helicobacter pylori infection-negative early gastric cancer. Dig Dis. 2020;38:474–483.
Hamashima C; Systematic Review Group and Guideline Development Group for Gastric Cancer Screening Guidelines. Update version of the Japanese Guidelines for Gastric Cancer Screening. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2018; 48:673–683.
Kato M, Ota H, Okuda M, et al. Guidelines for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection in Japan: 2016 Revised Edition. Helicobacter. 2019; 24:e12597.
Asaka M, Kobayashi M, Kudo T et al. Gastric cancer deaths by age group in Japan: outlook on preventive measures for elderly adults. Cancer Sci. 2020;111:3845–3853.
Asaka M. A new approach for elimination of gastric cancer deaths in Japan. Int J Cancer. 2013;132:1272–1276.
Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2014 (ver. 4). Gastric Cancer. 2017; 20:1–19.
Yuan Y, Ford AC, Khan KJ et al. Optimum duration of regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;12:8337.
Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare. Pref Cancer Screening Rate 2019. National Life Foundation Survey. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/saikin/hw/k-tyosa/k-tyosa19/dl/04.pdf. Accessed 5 December, 2022. [Japanese]
Cancer Information Service, National Cancer Center, Japan. Cancer Registry and Statistics. https://ganjoho.jp/reg_stat/statistics/stat/summary.html Accessed 5 December, 2022. [Japanese]
Wang C, Nishiyama T, Kikuchi S et al. Changing trends in the prevalence of H pylori infection in Japan (1908–2003): a systematic review and meta-regression analysis of 170,752 individuals. Sci. Rep. 2017;7:15491.
Mori H, Suzuki H, Omata F et al. Current status of first- and second-line Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy in the metropolitan area: a multicenter study with a large number of patients. Ther Adv Gastroenterol. 2019;12:1756284819858511.
Hamashima C, Okamoto M, Shabana M et al. Sensitivity of endoscopic screening for gastric cancer by the incidence method. Int J Cancer. 2013;133:653–659.
Lee HJ, Ock M, Kim KP et al. Estimation of population-based utility weights for gastric cancer-related health states. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:909–918.
Kyushu University Hospital Gastric Cancer Registration Information. https://www.gan.med.kyushu-u.ac.jp/result/gastric_cancer/index9. Accessed 5 December, 2022. [Japanese]
Kusano C, Gotoda T, Ikehara H et al. The accuracy of the serum antibody test for Helicobacter pylori infection among junior high school students. Digestion. 2021;102:155–160.
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Vital Statistics. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/list/81-1a.html Accessed 5 December, 2022. [Japanese]
Igakutsushin-sya. National fee schedule and Medical insurance reimbursement table in Japan. Tokyo: Igakutsushin-sya, Japan, 2020. [Japanese]
PPPs (Purchasing Power Parities) and exchange rates [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)Web site]. https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-ppp.htm. Accessed 25 July 2022.
Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 2016;316:1093–1103.
World Health Organization, Baltussen, Rob M. P. M, Adam, Taghreed, Tan-Torres Edejer, Tessa, Hutubessy, Raymond C. W. et al. (2003). Making choices in health: WHO guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42699. Accessed 5 December, 2022.
Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. Establishment of reference values for cost-effectiveness evaluation. 2018. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/05-Shingikai-12404000-Hokenkyoku-Iryouka/0000211609.pdf (Japanese) Accessed 5 December, 2022.
Statistics Bureau of Japan. Population Estimates Monthly Report. May 1, 2022 (Provisional estimates). https://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/jinsui/2.html. Accessed 5 December 2022.
Kowada A. Cost-effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori screening followed by eradication treatment for employees in Japan. Epidemiol Infect. 2018;146:1834–1840.
Kowada A, Asaka M. Economic and health impacts of introducing Helicobacter pylori eradication strategy into national gastric cancer policy in Japan: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Helicobacter. 2021;26:e12837.
Kowada A. Cost-effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori test and eradication versus upper gastrointestinal series versus endoscopy for gastric cancer mortality and outcomes in high prevalence countries. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2019;54:685–689.
Kowada A, Asaka M. Economic and health impacts of Helicobacter pylori eradication strategy for the treatment of peptic ulcer disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Helicobacter. 2022;27:e12886.
Shah SC, Canakis A, Peek RM Jr, Saumoy M. Endoscopy for gastric cancer screening is cost effective for Asian Americans in the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18:3026–3039.
Ascherman B, Oh A, Hur C. International cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating endoscopic screening for gastric cancer for populations with low and high risk. Gastric Cancer. 2021;24:878–887.
Huang HL, Leung CY, Saito E et al. Effect and cost-effectiveness of national gastric cancer screening in Japan: a microsimulation modeling study. BMC Med. 2020;18:257.
Xie Y, Song C, Cheng H et al. Long-term follow-up of Helicobacter pylori reinfection and its risk factors after initial eradication: a large-scale multicentre, prospective open cohort, observational study. Emerg Microb Infect. 2020;9:548–557.
Acknowledgments
Financial support, technical assistance, and advice were not received for this study.
Funding
No funding was received for this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Kowada, A. A Population-Based Helicobacter pylori Eradication Strategy Is More Cost-Effective than Endoscopic Screening. Dig Dis Sci 68, 1735–1746 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-022-07795-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-022-07795-z