Optimizing the Management Algorithm for Adults With Functional Constipation Failing a Fiber/Laxative Trial in General Gastroenterology: Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Minimization Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Anorectal function testing is traditionally relegated to subspecialty centers. Yet, it is an office-based procedure that appears capable of triaging care for the many patients with Rome IV functional constipation that fail empiric over-the-counter therapy in general gastroenterology, as an alternative to empirical prescription drugs. We aimed to evaluate cost-effectiveness of routine anorectal function testing in this specific population. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from the patient perspective and a cost-minimization analysis from the insurer perspective to compare 3 strategies: (i) empiric prescription drugs followed by pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) for drug failure, (ii) empiric PFPT followed by prescription drugs for PFPT failure, or (iii) care directed by up-front anorectal function testing. Model inputs were derived from systematic reviews of prospective clinical trials, national cost data sets, and observational cohort studies of the impact of chronic constipation on health outcomes, healthcare costs, and work productivity. RESULTS: The most cost-effective strategy was upfront anorectal function testing to triage patients to appropriate therapy, in which the subset of patients without anal hypocontractility on anorectal manometry and with a balloon expulsion time of at least 6.5 seconds would be referred to PFPT. In sensitivity analysis, empiric PFPT was more cost effective than empiric prescription drugs except for situations in which the primary goal of treatment was to increase bowel movement frequency. If adopted, gastroenterologists would refer ∼17 patients per year to PFPT, supporting feasibility. DISCUSSION: Anorectal function testing seems to be an emergent technology to optimize cost-effective outcomes, overcoming testing costs by phenotyping care.

Up-Front Endoscopy Maximizes Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Satisfaction in Uninvestigated Dyspepsia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Practice guidelines promote a routine noninvasive, non-endoscopic initial approach to investigating dyspepsia without alarm features in young patients, yet many patients undergo prompt upper endoscopy. We aimed to assess tradeoffs among costs, patient satisfaction, and clinical outcomes to inform discrepancy between guidelines and practice. METHODS: We constructed a decision-analytic model and performed cost-effectiveness/cost-satisfaction analysis over a 1-year time horizon on patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia without alarm features referred to gastroenterology. A RAND/UCLA expert panel informed model design. Four competing diagnostic/management strategies were evaluated: prompt endoscopy, testing for Helicobacter pylori and eradicating if present (test-and-treat), testing for H pylori and performing endoscopy if present (test-and-scope), and empiric acid suppression. Outcomes were derived from systematic reviews of clinical trials. Costs were informed by prospective observational cohort studies and national commercial/federal cost databases. Health gains were represented using quality-adjusted life years. RESULTS: From the patient perspective, costs and outcomes were similar for all strategies (maximum out-of-pocket difference of $30 and <0.01 quality-adjusted life years gained/year regardless of strategy). Prompt endoscopy maximized cost-satisfaction and health system reimbursement. Test-and-scope maximized cost-effectiveness from insurer and patient perspectives. Results remained robust on multiple one-way sensitivity analyses on model inputs and across most willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Noninvasive management strategies appear to result in inferior cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction outcomes compared with strategies promoting up-front endoscopy. Therefore, additional studies are needed to evaluate the drivers of patient satisfaction to facilitate inclusion in value-based healthcare transformation efforts.

Evaluating the Impact of Cost on the Treatment Algorithm for Chronic Idiopathic Constipation: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a common and burdensome illness. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of the US Food and Drug Administration-approved CIC drugs to evaluate and quantify treatment preferences compared with usual care from insurer and patient perspectives. METHODS: We evaluated the subset of patients with CIC and documented failure of over-the-counter (OTC) osmotic or bulk-forming laxatives. A RAND/UCLA consensus panel of 8 neurogastroenterologists informed model design. Treatment outcomes and costs were defined using integrated analyses of registered clinical trials and the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-supported cost databases. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated using health utilities derived from clinical trials. A 12-week time horizon was used. RESULTS: With continued OTC laxatives, CIC-related costs were $569 from an insurer perspective compared with $3,154 from a patient perspective (considering lost wages and out-of-pocket expenses). CIC prescription drugs increased insurer costs by $618-$1,015 but decreased patient costs by $327-$1,117. Effectiveness of CIC drugs was similar (0.02 QALY gained/12 weeks or ∼7 healthy days gained/year). From an insurer perspective, prescription drugs (linaclotide, prucalopride, and plecanatide) seemed less cost-effective than continued OTC laxatives (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio >$150,000/QALY gained). From a patient perspective, the cost-effective algorithm started with plecanatide, followed by choosing between prucalopride and linaclotide starting at the 145-µg dose (favoring prucalopride among patients whose disease affects their work productivity). The patient perspective was driven by drug tolerability and treatment effects on quality of life. DISCUSSION: Addressing costs at a policy level has the potential to enable patients and clinicians to move from navigating barriers in treatment access toward truly optimizing treatment choice.

Poor Health Literacy and Medication Burden Are Significant Predictors for Inadequate Bowel Preparation in an Urban Tertiary Care Setting.

GOALS: The goal of this study was to identify factors impacting the quality of bowel preparation in an urban tertiary care setting. BACKGROUND: Inadequate bowel preparation is encountered in 17% to 32% of colonoscopies performed in the United States. Suboptimal colonic visualization reduces the yield of screening colonoscopies and increases healthcare costs because of longer procedure times and aborted procedures. STUDY: We performed a cross-sectional survey in patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy within the Johns Hopkins Health System. A Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS) score of <5 was considered inadequate. Fisher's exact, χ tests and univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression were performed to assess the strength of the association for selected factors with a BBPS<5. RESULTS: In total, 467 patients (76.3% response rate) completed the survey between August 2017 and October 2017. The median BBPS score was 7, and 81.4% of patients had an adequate bowel preparation (BBPS≥5). There was significant association between bowel preparation adequacy and level of education, health literacy, functional status, income, and medication burden. When adjusted for other factors, poor confidence in filling forms (OR, 24.1; P<0.001), multiple daily prescription medications (OR, 12.49; P=0.02) and poor functional status (OR, 2.82; P=0.03) had the highest odds of predicting inadequate bowel preparation. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate bowel preparation is a significant problem accounting for reduced yield of screening and increased health care costs. Poor health literacy, functional status, and number of daily medications are significant factors predicting inadequate bowel preparation in the tertiary care setting.

Direct acting inhibitors of ammoniagenesis: a role in post-TIPS encephalopathy?

A limited number of medications are typically considered for the management of hepatic encephalopathy occurring as a complication of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement. Multiple alternative compounds aimed at disrupting ammoniagenesis are or will soon be available, though their use tends to be limited by a lack of large data sets and of clinical awareness. In this review, we provide a targeted overview of the mechanisms and availability of five anti-ammoniagenic compounds (sodium phenylbutyrate, glycerol phenylbutyrate, sodium benzoate, L-ornithine L-aspartate, and ornithine phenylacetate) identified as possibly useful alternative therapeutic agents for cirrhotic encephalopathy. Three of these medications have been FDA approved for use in congenital urea cycle disorders only, while two are under active investigation for use in cirrhotic patients. In spite of limitations posed by cost and comorbidities, familiarity with these options may prove beneficial in cases refractory to conventional management.