The cost-effectiveness of diagnostic testing strategies for Helicobacter pylori

Several noninvasive methods are now available for diagnosing Helicobacter pylori infection. Because the prevalence of H. pylori infection is variable in patients requiring testing, the optimal testing strategies may vary under different conditions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of competing diagnostic strategies for H. pylori in patients with varying H. pylori prevalence.

A decision analysis was performed comparing the costs per number of correct diagnoses achieved by alternative sequential testing strategies. Estimates of H. pylori prevalence and test characteristics were derived from a systematic review of the MEDLINE bibliographic database. Cost estimates were derived from the 2000 Medicare Fee Schedule.

The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test had the lowest cost per correct diagnosis at low (30%), intermediate (60%), and high (90%) prevalence ($90-$95/correct diagnosis), but its diagnostic accuracy was low (80-84%). At low and intermediate prevalence the stool test was more accurate (93%), with an average cost of $126-$127 per correct diagnosis. Additional confirmatory testing of positive or negative tests increased the diagnostic accuracy of the stool test, but had high incremental costs. ELISA testing was preferable when prevalence rates were very high (90%), and using a confirmatory urea breath test for negative ELISA tests increased the diagnostic accuracy to 96%, with modest incremental costs. If the cost of the breath test was <$50 or if the cost of the stool test is >$82, breath testing became preferable to stool testing. If the cost of the stool test fell to <$20, it became preferable to ELISA. Similarly, if the cost of the ELISA serology was >$39 then stool testing became preferable at all prevalence rates. Fingerstick whole blood tests were not cost-effective.

The choice of an initial test for H. pylori detection depends on the prevalence of H. pylori infection and the value placed on increased diagnostic accuracy. Although ELISA results in the lowest cost-effectiveness ratios, in patients at low-intermediate pretest probability of infection, the stool test provides increased accuracy, with modest incremental costs.