BACKGROUND: The cost of liver biopsy (LB) is publicly funded in British Columbia, while the cost of transient elastography (FibroScan [FS], Echosens, France) is not. Consequently, there is regional variation regarding FS access and monitoring of liver disease progression. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient preference for FS versus LB and to assess the willingness to self-pay for FS. METHODS: Questionnaires were distributed in clinic and via mail to LB-experienced and LB-naive patients who underwent FS at Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 76%. Of the 422 respondents, 205 were LB-experienced. The mean age was 53.5 years, 50.2% were male, 54.7% were Caucasian, 38.2% had hepatitis C and 26.3% had an annual household income >$75,000. Overall, 95.4% of patients preferred FS to LB. FS was associated with greater comfort than LB, with the majority reporting no discomfort during FS (84.1% versus 7.8% for LB), no discomfort after (96.2% versus 14.6% LB) and no feelings of anxiety after FS explanation (78.2% versus 12.7% LB). FS was also associated with greater speed, with the majority reporting short test duration (97.2% versus 48.3% LB) and short wait for the test result (95.5% versus 30.2% LB). Most (75.3%) respondents were willing to self-pay for FS, with 26.3% willing to pay $25 to $49. Patients with unknown liver disease preferred LB (OR [FS preference] 0.20 [95% CI 0.07 to 0.53]). CONCLUSIONS: FS was the preferred method of assessing liver fibrosis among patients, with the majority willing to self-pay. To ensure consistency in access, provincial funding for FS is needed. However, LB remains the procedure of choice for individuals with an unknown diagnosis.
Kan, V. Y., Azalgara, V. M., Ford, J. A. E., Kwan, W. C. P., Erb, S. R., & Yoshida, E. M. (2015, March 1). Patient preference and willingness to pay for transient elastography versus liver biopsy: A perspective from British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Pulsus Group Inc. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/169190