Heartburn Relief Is the Major Unmet Need for Drug Development in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Threshold Value Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Heartburn symptoms contribute to healthcare-seeking among patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Despite clinical guidance, management is often dictated by insurance restrictions. Several potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCABs) are under development as a new class of therapy. We performed economic analyses to align GERD drug development with the needs of gastroenterologists, insurers and patients in a value-based environment. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was constructed to compare vonoprazan 20 mg daily (an example of a PCAB), common over-the-counter or prescription proton pump inhibitor regimens, and no treatment over a 1-year time horizon. Clinical responses were evaluated based on the proportions of heartburn-free days in a recent phase 3 multicenter trial. Healthcare utilization for persistent reflux symptoms was derived from national observational studies compared with healthy control subjects. Costs and quality-adjusted life years were reported. RESULTS: Without insurance coverage for appropriate therapy, patients spend $4443 and insurers spend $3784 on average per year for inadequately treated GERD symptoms. Our model estimates that PCABs could save at least $3000 in annual costs to patients and insurers, could generate quality-adjusted life year gains (+0.06 per year), and could be cost-saving to insurers as a covered option at a price up to $8.57 per pill, if these drugs are able to demonstrate similar effectiveness to proton pump inhibitors in future trials evaluating heartburn relief and erosive esophagitis healing to regulators. Threshold prices reflect pricing after all pharmacy benefits manager rebates and discounts. DISCUSSION: We demonstrate that aiming GERD-related drug development toward heartburn relief appears critical to align cost-effective incentives for industry and insurers with those of patients and gastroenterologists.

Centrally Distributed Adiposity as a Modifiable Risk Factor for Fecal Incontinence: United States Population-based Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Fecal incontinence (FI) is highly prevalent with substantial impacts on quality of life and health care utilization. The impact of obesity on FI remains unclear, with differing conclusions using body mass index (BMI) as a risk factor. We aimed to determine the association between obesity and FI, and whether this relationship is dependent on the distribution of adiposity (waist circumference-to-height ratio [WHtR]). METHODS: This was a population-based analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, including participants who responded to the bowel health survey in 2005 to 2010. FI was defined by the accidental bowel leakage of solid stool, liquid, or mucus at least once in the past month. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to assess risk factors for FI. RESULTS: A total of 7606 participants were included, with an overall FI prevalence of 9.2%. When stratified by quartiles of body measurements, FI was increasingly prevalent from the 1st to the 4th quartile for both WHtR (range, 5.3%-12.5%) and BMI (range, 7.1%-10.5%). WHtR was associated with FI and was a stronger predictor than BMI in all quartiles of body measurement. On multivariable analysis, WHtR remained a significant predictor of FI comparing the 4th with the 1st quartile of body measurements (odds ratio [OR], 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-2.80; P = .017), whereas BMI was not. A WHtR cutoff of >0.592 optimized the Youden index in prediction of FI in the overall sample. CONCLUSION: WHtR was independently associated with increased odds of FI in this nationally representative sample of United States adults, whereas BMI was not consistently correlated. This suggests bowel continence may depend more on how body mass is distributed.

American Gastroenterological Association-American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Pharmacological Management of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a common disorder associated with significant impairment in quality of life. This clinical practice guideline, jointly developed by the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology, aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of CIC in adults. METHODS: The American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that conducted systematic reviews of the following agents: fiber, osmotic laxatives (polyethylene glycol, magnesium oxide, lactulose), stimulant laxatives (bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, senna), secretagogues (lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide), and serotonin type 4 agonist (prucalopride). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to assess the certainty of evidence for each intervention. The Evidence to Decision framework was used to develop clinical recommendations based on the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 10 recommendations for the pharmacological management of CIC in adults. Based on available evidence, the panel made strong recommendations for the use of polyethylene glycol, sodium picosulfate, linaclotide, plecanatide, and prucalopride for CIC in adults. Conditional recommendations were made for the use of fiber, lactulose, senna, magnesium oxide, and lubiprostone. DISCUSSION: This document provides a comprehensive outline of the various over-the-counter and prescription pharmacological agents available for the treatment of CIC. The guidelines are meant to provide a framework for approaching the management of CIC; clinical providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient preferences as well as medication cost and availability. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted to help guide future research opportunities and enhance the care of patients with chronic constipation.

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 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.

Valuing innovative endoscopic techniques: hemostatic powder for the treatment of GI tumor bleeding.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Access to new endoscopic treatment modalities often depends on price. To resolve this gap and therefore help to ensure that care delivery can occur on a clinical basis, we aimed to establish the value to insurers of novel hemostatic powder to treat GI tumor bleeding. METHODS: A decision-analytic model developed to assess the impact of endoscopic intervention on the risk of 30-day readmission for GI bleeding from an insurer perspective was adapted to assess GI tumor bleeding with hemostatic powder or standard endoscopic therapy. Costs were derived from Medicare populations. Outcomes were derived from a recent multicenter randomized clinical trial. RESULTS: Costs ranged from $651 to $1613 to treat upper GI tumor bleeding and from $531 to $1014 to treat lower GI tumor bleeding based on risk reduction in 30-day hospital readmission for recurrent bleeding. These valuations should represent medical device and incremental facility costs in addition to incremental physician and staff time. CONCLUSIONS: Coverage for novel endoscopic hemostatic powder therapy seems cost-saving to insurers.

Development of a Simple, Point-of-Care Device to Test Anorectal Function in Patients with Constipation: Randomized Clinical Trial.

Functional constipation (FC) is one of the most frequently encountered gastrointestinal conditions in practice.1 Practice guidelines universally recommend that patients with typical constipation symptoms and no alarm features be treated empirically with dietary/lifestyle interventions and laxative therapy.2,3 Unfortunately, by the time a patient reaches a gastroenterologist, these treatments frequently have already been tried. Anorectal function testing (anorectal manometry [ARM] and balloon expulsion test [BET]) is the next best step in management guidelines in this all-too-common scenario, because treatment can then be targeted toward pelvic floor dysfunction or colon transit abnormalities. Unfortunately, more than 95% of patients continue to take only over-the-counter laxatives and receive empirical dietary advice, whereas fewer than 2% undergo physiologic evaluation to ascertain the cause of their symptoms.4 Indeed, more than 90% of patients desire more effective treatment options. These observations call into question the wisdom of a management strategy that fails to recognize the intrinsic diversity of the constipation universe and reinforces the misguided "one size fits all" empirical treatment strategy.

Clinical History Does Not Reliably Predict Clinical Outcomes With Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy to Treat Chronic Constipation.

Chronic constipation affects 10%-20% of the population and impacts quality-of-life similarly to rheumatoid arthritis or congestive heart failure.1 We recently showed in a prospective clinical trial that up-front, community-based pelvic floor physical therapy is effective to treat chronic constipation for patients seeking general gastroenterology care after failing a brief trial of osmotic laxative or soluble fiber supplementation2 and can be guided by anorectal function testing.3,4 In this post hoc analysis, we aimed to evaluate whether factors on clinical history including specific symptoms, work-productivity impairment, health-related quality-of-life impairment, and psychological factors are useful to inform patient selection on the expected likelihood of clinical response without using anorectal function tests.

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.

An Office-Based, Point-of-Care Test Predicts Treatment Outcomes With Community-Based Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy in Patients With Chronic Constipation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Rectal evacuation disorders are common among constipated patients. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of an investigational point-of-care test (rectal expulsion device [RED]) to predict outcomes with community-based pelvic floor physical therapy. METHODS: We enrolled patients meeting Rome IV criteria for functional constipation failing fiber/laxatives for more than 2 weeks. RED was inserted and self-inflated, and then time-to-expel was measured in a left lateral position. All patients underwent empiric community-based pelvic floor physical therapy in routine care with outcomes measured at 12 weeks. The primary end point was global clinical response (Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms score reduction, >0.75 vs baseline). Secondary end points included improvement in health-related quality-of-life (Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score reduction, >1.0) and complete spontaneous bowel movement frequency (Food and Drug Administration complete spontaneous bowel movement responder definition). RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients enrolled in a feasibility phase to develop the use-case protocol. Sixty patients enrolled in a blinded validation phase; 52 patients (mean, 46.9 y; 94.2% women) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the left lateral position, RED predicted global clinical response (generalized area under the curve [gAUC], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.58-0.76]), health-related quality-of-life response (gAUC, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.58-0.77; P < .001), and complete spontaneous bowel movement response (gAUC, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.71; P < .001). As a screening test, a normal RED effectively rules out evacuation disorders (expected clinical response, 8.9%; P = .042). Abnormal RED in the left lateral position (defined as expulsion within 5 seconds or >120 seconds) predicted 48.9% clinical response to physical therapy. A seated maneuver enhanced the likelihood of clinical response (71.1% response with seated RED retained >13 seconds) but likely is unnecessary in most settings. CONCLUSIONS: RED offers an opportunity to disrupt the paradigm by offering a personalized approach to managing chronic constipation in the community (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04159350).

Utility of Anorectal Testing to Predict Outcomes With Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy in Chronic Constipation: Pragmatic Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We performed a clinical trial that aimed to inform the clinical utility of anorectal manometry (ARM) and balloon expulsion time (BET) as up-front tests to predict outcomes with community-based pelvic floor physical therapy as the next best step to address chronic constipation after failing an empiric trial of soluble fiber supplementation or osmotic laxatives. METHODS: We enrolled 60 treatment-naïve patients with Rome IV functional constipation failing 2 weeks of soluble fiber supplementation or osmotic laxatives. All patients underwent ARM/BET (London protocol) followed by community-based pelvic floor physical therapy. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and 12 weeks. The primary end point was clinical response (Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms instrument). RESULTS: Fifty-three patients completed pelvic rehabilitation and the post-treatment questionnaire. Contemporary frameworks define dyssynergia on balloon expulsion time and dyssynergic patterns (ARM), but these parameters did not inform clinical outcomes (area under the curve [AUC], <0.6). Squeeze pressure (>192.5 mm Hg on at least 1 of 3 attempts; sensitivity, 47.6%; specificity, 83.9%) and limited squeeze duration (inability to sustain 50% of squeeze pressure for >20 seconds; sensitivity, 71.4%; specificity, 58.1%) were the strongest predictors of clinical outcomes. Combining BET with squeeze duration (BET greater than 6.5 seconds and limited squeeze duration) improved predictive accuracy (AUC, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.90). BET poorly predicted outcomes as a single test (AUC, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.38-0.69). CONCLUSIONS: Using ARM to evaluate squeeze profiles, rather than dyssynergia, appears useful to screen patients with chronic constipation for up-front pelvic floor physical therapy based on likelihood of response. BET appears noninformative as a single screening test (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04159350).

Optimizing the Utility of Anorectal Manometry for Diagnosis and Therapy: A Roundtable Review and Recommendations.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Anorectal manometry (ARM) is a comprehensive diagnostic tool for evaluating patients with constipation, fecal incontinence, or anorectal pain; however, it is not widely utilized for reasons that remain unclear. The aim of this roundtable discussion was to critically examine the current clinical practices of ARM and biofeedback therapy by physicians and surgeons in both academic and community settings. METHODS: Leaders in medical and surgical gastroenterology and physical therapy with interest in anorectal disorders were surveyed regarding practice patterns and utilization of these technologies. Subsequently, a roundtable was held to discuss survey results, explore current diagnostic and therapeutic challenges with these technologies, review the literature, and generate consensus-based recommendations. RESULTS: ARM identifies key pathophysiological abnormalities such as dyssynergic defecation, anal sphincter weakness, or rectal sensory dysfunction, and is a critical component of biofeedback therapy, an evidence-based treatment for patients with dyssynergic defecation and fecal incontinence. Additionally, ARM has the potential to enhance health-related quality of life and reduce healthcare costs. However, it has significant barriers that include a lack of education and training of healthcare providers regarding the utility and availability of ARM and biofeedback procedures, as well as challenges with condition-specific testing protocols and interpretation. Additional barriers include understanding when to perform, where to refer, and how to use these technologies, and confusion over billing practices. CONCLUSIONS: Overcoming these challenges with appropriate education, training, collaborative research, and evidence-based guidelines for ARM testing and biofeedback therapy could significantly enhance patient care of anorectal disorders.

American Gastroenterological Association-American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Pharmacological Management of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a common disorder associated with significant impairment in quality of life. This clinical practice guideline, jointly developed by the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology, aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of CIC in adults. METHODS: The American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that conducted systematic reviews of the following agents: fiber, osmotic laxatives (polyethylene glycol, magnesium oxide, lactulose), stimulant laxatives (bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, senna), secretagogues (lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide), and serotonin type 4 agonist (prucalopride). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to assess the certainty of evidence for each intervention. The Evidence to Decision framework was used to develop clinical recommendations based on the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 10 recommendations for the pharmacological management of CIC in adults. Based on available evidence, the panel made strong recommendations for the use of polyethylene glycol, sodium picosulfate, linaclotide, plecanatide, and prucalopride for CIC in adults. Conditional recommendations were made for the use of fiber, lactulose, senna, magnesium oxide, and lubiprostone. DISCUSSION: This document provides a comprehensive outline of the various over-the-counter and prescription pharmacological agents available for the treatment of CIC. The guidelines are meant to provide a framework for approaching the management of CIC; clinical providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient preferences as well as medication cost and availability. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted to help guide future research opportunities and enhance the care of patients with chronic constipation.

Chronic Pain and Mood Disorders Are Not Barriers to Symptom Improvement Under Collaborative Co-managed Care (C3).

OBJECTIVES: Patients with comorbid chronic pain and mood disorders have more severe gastrointestinal disease and higher healthcare expenses than their peers. We sought to determine whether management under our innovative Collaborative Co-Managed Care (C3) general gastroenterology care model improved outcomes. METHODS: Patient questionnaires completed by outpatients at our GI Motility Center were analyzed alongside demographic information to determine predictors of response to treatment based on adequate relief of gastrointestinal symptoms and improvement in quality of life. RESULTS: These comorbidities did not significantly impair response and may be associated with improved response under our model. CONCLUSIONS: The C3 general gastroenterology care model anchors on setting expectations and team-based communication and improves outcomes of, and access to, care.

Video-Based Deep Learning to Detect Dyssynergic Defecation with 3D High-Definition Anorectal Manometry.

BACKGROUND: We developed a deep learning algorithm to evaluate defecatory patterns to identify dyssynergic defecation using 3-dimensional high definition anal manometry (3D-HDAM). AIMS: We developed a 3D-HDAM deep learning algorithm to evaluate for dyssynergia. METHODS: Spatial-temporal data were extracted from consecutive 3D-HDAM studies performed between 2018 and 2020 at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Health. The technical procedure and gold standard definition of dyssynergia were based on the London consensus, adapted to the needs of 3D-HDAM technology. Three machine learning models were generated: (1) traditional machine learning informed by conventional anorectal function metrics, (2) deep learning, and (3) a hybrid approach. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated using bootstrap sampling to calculate area-under-the-curve (AUC). To evaluate overfitting, models were validated by adding 502 simulated defecation maneuvers with diagnostic ambiguity. RESULTS: 302 3D-HDAM studies representing 1208 simulated defecation maneuvers were included (average age 55.2 years; 80.5% women). The deep learning model had comparable diagnostic accuracy [AUC 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.89-0.93)] to traditional [AUC 0.93(0.92-0.95)] and hybrid [AUC 0.96(0.94-0.97)] predictive models in training cohorts. However, the deep learning model handled ambiguous tests more cautiously than other models; the deep learning model was more likely to designate an ambiguous test as inconclusive [odds ratio 4.21(2.78-6.38)] versus traditional/hybrid approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Deep learning is capable of considering complex spatial-temporal information on 3D-HDAM technology. Future studies are needed to evaluate the clinical context of these preliminary findings.

Comparing Costs and Outcomes of Treatments for Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Diarrhea: Cost-Benefit Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most expensive gastroenterological conditions and is an ideal target for developing a value-based care model. We assessed the comparative cost-benefit of treatments for IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D), the most common IBS subtype from insurer and patient perspectives. METHODS: We constructed a decision analytic model assessing trade-offs among guideline-recommended and recently FDA-approved drugs, supplements, low FODMAP diet, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Outcomes and costs were derived from systematic reviews of clinical trials and national databases. Health-gains were represented using quality-adjusted life years (QALY). RESULTS: From an insurer perspective, on-label prescription drugs (rifaximin, eluxadoline, alosetron) were significantly more expensive than off-label treatments, low FODMAP, or CBT. Insurer treatment preferences were driven by average wholesale prescription drug prices and were not affected by health gains in sensitivity analysis within standard willingness-to-pay ranges up to $150,000/QALY-gained. From a patient perspective, prescription drug therapies and neuromodulators appeared preferable due to a reduction in lost wages due to IBS with effective therapy, and also considering out-of-pocket costs of low FODMAP food and out-of-pocket costs to attend CBT appointments. Comparative health outcomes exerted influence on treatment preferences from a patient perspective in cost-benefit analysis depending on a patients' willingness-to-pay threshold for additional health-gains, but health outcomes were less important than out-of-pocket costs at lower willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Costs are critical determinants of IBS treatment value to patients and insurers, but different costs drive patient and insurer treatment preferences. Divergent cost drivers appear to explain misalignment between patient and insurer IBS treatment preferences in practice.

2021 National Survey on Prior Authorization Burden and Its Impact on Gastroenterology Practice.

INTRODUCTION: Prior authorizations (PAs) are intended to control prescription drug expenditures. METHODS: One hundred fifty-six physician and advanced practice provider members of the American College of Gastroenterology completed a national survey to assess PA burden and impact. RESULTS: One-half of PA requests relate to prescription refills. Greater than 50% of the respondents choose inferior treatments at least weekly because of perceived PA burden for preferred agents. One-half of the respondents reported a patient who experienced serious adverse events due to PA-related care delays. DISCUSSION: PA is an administrative burden that exhausts practice resources and may have a negative impact on patient care.

Consider Hereditary Angioedema in the Differential Diagnosis for Unexplained Recurring Abdominal Pain.

Health care providers are likely to encounter patients with recurrent unexplained abdominal pain. Because hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare disease, it may not be part of the differential diagnosis, especially for patients who do not have concurrent skin swelling in addition to abdominal symptoms. Abdominal pain is very common in patients with HAE, occurring in up to 93% of patients, with recurrent abdominal pain reported in up to 80% of patients. In 49% of HAE attacks with abdominal symptoms, isolated abdominal pain was the only symptom. Other abdominal symptoms that commonly present in patients with HAE include distension, cramping, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The average time from onset of symptoms to diagnosis is 6 to 23 years. Under-recognition of HAE in patients presenting with predominant gastrointestinal symptoms is a key factor contributing to the delay in diagnosis, increasing the likelihood of unnecessary or exploratory surgeries or procedures and the potential risk of related complications. HAE should be considered in the differential diagnosis for patients with unexplained abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and/or diarrhea who have complete resolution of symptoms between episodes. As highly effective targeted therapies for HAE exist, recognition and diagnosis of HAE in patients presenting with isolated abdominal pain may significantly improve morbidity and mortality for these individuals.

Baseline Predictors of Discontinuation of Prescription Drug Therapy for IBS-C: Cohort Analysis at an Integrated Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: Effective prescription drug treatment of constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-C) requires patients to remain on daily therapy, yet predictive factors to optimize treatment selection are unknown. AIMS: We assessed whether common comorbidities including chronic overlapping pain conditions (COPCs), mood disorders, or concurrent medications influence the risk of discontinuing IBS-C prescription drug therapy. METHODS: We included all IBS-C patients who initiated treatment with the secretagogues linaclotide or lubiprostone across the Michigan Medicine healthcare system between 2012 and 2016. A Cox proportional hazards model was constructed to model time-to-treatment discontinuation as a valid, quantifiable measure of IBS medication persistence using hazards ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Our cohort included 225 patients on linaclotide and 492 on lubiprostone (mean age 48.3 years, 86.9% women, 46.6% with at least one COPC, 60.3% with at least one mood disorder) with an average follow-up of 2.1 years. Patients with at least one COPC (HR = 0.566; 95%CI = 0.371-0.863) and also women (HR = 0.535; 95%CI = 0.307-0.934) had a lower risk of discontinuing linaclotide, while COPCs predicted a trend toward increased discontinuation of lubiprostone (HR = 1.254; 95%CI = 0.997-1.576). Age, comorbid mood disorders, and baseline use of narcotics or benzodiazepines did not significantly mediate the risk of treatment discontinuation; our findings remained stable in univariate and multivariable analyses. CONCLUSIONS: COPCs and sex appear to influence the likelihood of discontinuation of two commonly prescribed secretagogues, while mood disorders, narcotics, and benzodiazepines may not. Routine assessment for comorbid COPCs prior to initiating therapy may optimize IBS-C treatment selection and outcomes in practice.