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.

Optimizing the Management Algorithm for Esophageal Dysphagia After Index Endoscopy: Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Minimization Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Guidelines advise esophageal motility testing for dysphagia when structural disorders are ruled out, but cost concerns impede adoption. We evaluated cost-effective positioning of esophageal motility testing in the algorithm to evaluate esophageal dysphagia. METHODS: We developed a decision analytic model comparing 3 strategies: (i) esophageal manometry, (ii) screening impedance planimetry followed by esophageal manometry if needed, or (iii) nonalgorithmic usual care. Diagnostic test accuracy was adapted to expected rates of esophageal motility disorders in general gastroenterology populations. We modeled routine testing for all patients with nonstructural/mechanical dysphagia compared with selective testing with strong suspicion for achalasia. Cost outcomes were defined on national commercial and Medicare datasets stratified on age and sex. Health outcomes were modeled on populations with achalasia. The time horizon was 1 year. RESULTS: Motility testing was preferred over nonalgorithmic usual care due to cost savings rather than health gains. To commercial insurers, routine esophageal manometry for nonstructural/mechanical dysphagia would be cost-saving below a reimbursed cost of $2,415. Screening impedance planimetry would be cost saving below a reimbursed cost of $1,130. The limit for reimbursed costs would be lower for patients older than 65 years to achieve cost savings mainly due to insurance. Sex did not significantly influence cost-effectiveness. Patients and insurers preferred routine screening impedance planimetry before manometry when the index of suspicion for achalasia was below 6%. DISCUSSION: Aligning with practice guidelines, routine esophageal motility testing seems cost saving to patients and insurers compared with nonalgorithmic usual care to evaluate nonstructural/mechanical dysphagia. Choice of testing should be guided by index of suspicion.

Optimizing the Management Algorithm for Heartburn in General Gastroenterology: Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Minimization Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Heartburn is the most common symptom seen in gastroenterology practice. We aimed to optimize cost-effective evaluation and management of heartburn. METHODS: We developed a decision analytic model from insurer and patient perspectives comparing 4 strategies for patients failing empiric proton pump inhibitors (PPIs): (1) PPI optimization without testing, (2) endoscopy with PPI optimization for all patients, (3) endoscopy with PPI discontinuation when erosive findings are absent, and (4) endoscopy/ambulatory reflux monitoring with PPI discontinuation as appropriate for phenotypic management. Health outcomes were respectively defined on systematic reviews of clinical trials. Cost outcomes were defined on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services databases and commercial multipliers for direct healthcare costs, and national observational studies evaluating healthcare utilization. The time horizon was 1 year. All testing was performed off PPI. RESULTS: PPI optimization without testing cost $3784/y to insurers and $3128 to patients due to lower work productivity and suboptimal symptom relief. Endoscopy with PPI optimization lowered insurer costs by $1020/y and added 11 healthy days/y by identifying erosive reflux disease. Endoscopy with PPI discontinuation added 11 additional healthy days/y by identifying patients without erosive reflux disease that did not need PPI. By optimizing phenotype-guided treatment, endoscopy/ambulatory reflux monitoring with a trial of PPI discontinuation was the most effective of all strategies (gaining 22 healthy days/y) and saved $2183 to insurers and $2396 to patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with heartburn, endoscopy with ambulatory reflux monitoring (off PPI) optimizes cost-effective management by matching treatment to phenotype. When erosive findings are absent, trialing PPI discontinuation is more cost-effective than optimizing PPI.

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.

Assessment of the clinical and allergy profiles of PPI responsive and non-responsive eosinophilic esophagitis.

A subset of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) respond to proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, however they cannot be distinguished prior to PPI trial and the mechanism of PPI response remains unclear. Improved understanding of the distinct patient phenotypes in PPI-responsive EoE (PPI-r-EoE), PPI-non-responsive EoE (PPI-nr-EoE) and erosive esophagitis (EE) may help guide management. The aim of this paper is to compare the clinical and allergy profiles of PPI-r-EoE versus PPI-nr-EoE and EE. This was a retrospective case-control study of EoE patients (>15 eos/hpf on esophageal biopsies) at a tertiary center. EE controls were identified from the pathology database. EoE patients were classified as PPI-r-EoE or PPI-nr-EoE based on histologic response to twice-daily PPI for ≥8 weeks. Patient demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, allergy history and endoscopic findings were recorded. Univariate analyses were performed using the Fisher-exact test or t-test. Multivariable analyses were performed using logistic regression. In all, 104 EoE (57 PPI-r-EoE/47 PPI-nr-EoE) and 80 EE subjects were included. On multivariable analyses, allergic conditions (aOR 20.1, P < 0.0001) and rings (aOR 108.3, P = 0.001) were independent predictors for PPI-r-EoE versus EE, whereas allergic conditions (aOR 4.8, P = 0.03), rings (aOR 27.5, P = 0.002) and furrows (aOR 17.1, P = 0.04) were independent predictors for PPI-nr-EoE versus EE. Esophageal rings was the only significant predictor found in PPI-nr-EoE versus PPI-r-EoE (OR 2.5, P = 0.03). Allergic conditions and esophageal rings are significantly more prevalent in PPI-r-EoE and PPI-nr-EoE compared with EE. PPI-r-EoE appears clinically similar to PPI-nr-EoE and significantly different from EE. Further studies are needed to delineate the underlying pathophysiology of PPI-r-EoE versus PPI-nr-EoE.

Transoral incisionless fundoplication is cost-effective for treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Background and study aims Given the sizable number of patients with symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) despite proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, non-pharmacologic treatment has become increasingly utilized. The aim of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of medical, endoscopic, and surgical treatment of GERD. Patients and methods A deterministic Markov cohort model was constructed from the US healthcare payer's perspective to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of three competing strategies: 1) omeprazole 20 mg twice daily; 2) transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF 2.0); and 3) laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication [LNF]. Cost was reported in US dollars with health outcomes recorded in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Ten-year and lifetime time horizons were utilized with 3 % discount rate and half-cycle corrections applied. The main outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $ 100,000 per QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed. Results In our base-case analysis, the average cost of TIF 2.0 was $ 13,978.63 versus $ 17,658.47 for LNF and $ 10,931.49 for PPI. Compared to the PPI strategy, TIF 2.0 was cost-effective with an incremental cost of $ 3,047 and incremental effectiveness of 0.29 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $ 10,423.17 /QALY gained. LNF was strongly dominated by TIF 2.0. Over a lifetime horizon, TIF 2.0 remained the cost-effective strategy for patients with symptoms despite twice-daily 20-mg omeprazole. TIF 2.0 remained cost-effective after varying parameter inputs in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and for scenario analyses in multiple age groups. Conclusions Based upon this study, TIF 2.0 was cost-effective for patients with symptomatic GERD despite low-dose, twice-daily PPI.

Low-cost gastrointestinal manometry via silicone-liquid-metal pressure transducers resembling a quipu.

The evaluation of the tone and contractile patterns of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract via manometry is essential for the diagnosis of GI motility disorders. However, manometry is expensive and relies on complex and bulky instrumentation. Here we report the development and performance of an inexpensive and easy-to-manufacture catheter-like device for capturing manometric data across the dynamic range observed in the human GI tract. The device, which we designed to resemble the quipu-knotted strings used by Andean civilizations for the capture and transmission of information-consists of knotted piezoresistive pressure sensors made by infusing a liquid metal (eutectic gallium-indium) through thin silicone tubing. By exploring a range of knotting configurations, we identified optimal design schemes that led to sensing performances comparable to those of commercial devices for GI manometry, as we show for the sensing of GI motility in multiple anatomic sites of the GI tract of anaesthetized pigs. Disposable and customizable piezoresistive catheters may broaden the use of GI manometry in low-resource settings.

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.

Optimizing EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling: comprehensive assessment of needle types and tissue acquisition techniques.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling using FNA and, more recently, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles has been reported with discrepant diagnostic accuracy, in part due to differences in methodology. We aimed to compare liver histologic yields of 4 EUS-based needles and 2 percutaneous needles to identify optimal number of needle passes and suction. METHODS: Six needle types were tested on human cadaveric tissue: one 19G FNA needle, one existing 19G FNB needle, one novel 19G FNB needle, one 22G FNB needle, and two 18G percutaneous needles (18G1 and 18G2). Two needle excursion patterns (1 vs 3 fanning passes) were performed on all EUS needles. Primary outcome was number of portal tracts. Secondary outcomes were degree of fragmentation and specimen adequacy. Pairwise comparisons were performed using t tests, with a 2-sided P < .05 considered to be significant. Multivariable regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: In total, 288 liver biopsy samplings (48 per needle type) were performed. The novel 19G FNB needle had significantly increased mean portal tracts compared with all needle types. The 22G FNB needle had significantly increased portal tracts compared with the 18G1 needle (3.8 vs 2.5, P < .001) and was not statistically different from the 18G2 needle (3.8 vs 3.5, P = .68). FNB needles (P < .001) and 3 fanning passes (P ≤ .001) were independent predictors of the number of portal tracts. CONCLUSIONS: A novel 19G EUS-guided liver biopsy needle provides superior histologic yield compared with 18G percutaneous needles and existing 19G FNA and core needles. Moreover, the 22G FNB needle may be adequate for liver biopsy sampling. Investigations are underway to determine whether these results can be replicated in a clinical setting.

Assessment of fractionated exhaled nitric oxide as a biomarker for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis.

Diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and determination of response to therapy is based on histological assessment of the esophagus, which requires upper endoscopy. In children, in whom a dietary approach is commonly used, multiple endoscopies are needed, because foods are eliminated and then gradually reintroduced. Ideally, noninvasive methods could supplement or replace upper endoscopy to facilitate management. Fractionated exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) has been proposed as a useful measure for monitoring disease activity in studies of patients with eosinophil-predominant asthma and in other atopic disorders. Thus, we evaluated whether FeNO levels could be a useful biomarker to assess the response to therapy in EoE patients. This study was designed to determine whether there is a change in FeNO levels during treatment with topical corticosteroids and whether changes correlated with clinical response. This was a prospective, multicenter study that enrolled nonasthmatic patients with established EoE. FeNO levels and symptom scores were measured at baseline, biweekly during 6-week swallowed fluticasone treatment, and 4 weeks posttreatment. Twelve patients completed the trial. We found a statistically significant difference between median pre- and posttreatment FeNO levels [20.3 ppb (16.0 -29.0 ppb) vs 17.6 ppb (11.7 -27.3 ppb), [corrected] p=0.009]. However, neither the pretreatment FeNO level, a change of FeNO level after 2 weeks of treatment, nor the FeNO level at the end of treatment confidently predicted a clinical or histological response. Although our findings suggest nitric oxide possibly has a physiological role in EoE, our observations do not support a role of FeNo determination for management of EoE.