Hemostatic powder TC-325 as first-line treatment option for malignant gastrointestinal bleeding: a cost–utility analysis in the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Randomized controlled trials have shown that hemostatic powder (TC-325) results in greater immediate hemostasis and lower 30-day rebleeding rates than standard endoscopic therapy (SET) for management of malignant upper gastrointestinal bleeding (MUGIB). We explored whether TC-325 would be a cost-effective first-line option for patients with MUGIB compared with SET in the United Kingdom. Methods: A decision tree was developed for patients with MUGIB, assessing initial therapy with TC-325 or SET over a 30-day period. Patients with failed initial hemostasis or a rebleed within 30 days underwent further endoscopic treatment, escalation to either transcatheter arterial embolization or surgery, or radiotherapy. Overall 30-day mortality was applied. Costs, in GBP, were based on the United Kingdom National Health Services costs for 2023/2024. Results were reported as incremental differences in cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and net monetary benefit. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were performed. Results: The cost of treating MUGIB patients with TC-325 was £245.88 lower than treatment with SET, with an incremental increase of 0.001 QALYs. TC-325 remained a cost-saving approach in sensitivity and scenario analyses. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that TC-325 was more effective and cost saving in 80.1% of simulations (range 67.5%–98.63%). Conclusions: Initial treatment of MUGIB with TC-325 compared with SET was more effective (higher primary hemostasis and lower 30-day rebleeding) and cost saving owing to the requirement for fewer interventions, readmissions, and length of stay. Additional studies are needed to address model uncertainties in the follow-up management of these complex patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".