Cost of chronic inflammatory disease: The impact of eosinophilic esophagitis in Nevada.

OBJECTIVES: The cost of treating the rare eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) disease and its impact on patients' quality of life have not been well documented in the literature. This study seeks to fill this gap by comparing the cost of EoE with other well-known inflammatory diseases, including Crohn's disease (CD) and celiac disease (CeD). METHODS: A Mann-Whitney U test and multiple logistic regression were used to examine the cost of EoE in the state of Nevada across all hospital settings and its impact on quality of life compared with CD and CeD. RESULTS: Several factors were associated with the overall cost of EoE in Nevada, including patients' age, sex and region (P < 0.001). EoE was significantly more expensive to treat in the pediatric group ($4001 EoE; $985 CD; $856 CeD), among men ($2532 EoE; $1500 CD; $1724 CeD), among those residing in the southern region of Nevada ($4501 EoE; $2538 CD; $1888 CeD), and among patients seeking medical care from outpatient clinics ($3298 EoE; $741 CD; $1686 CeD) (P < 0.001). Age, sex, region and hospital setting were all associated with having a positive EoE record compared with CeD or CD (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Data from this study indicate that the EoE burden is significantly higher in cost for certain demographics and regions compared with CD and CeD in the state of Nevada, specifically among pediatric and male patients. These differences suggest that clinicians may encounter similar issues when treating EoE.

Cost-effective care in eosinophilic esophagitis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine costs related to eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), understand the source of these costs, discuss a possible approach for cost-effective care in EoE, and identify areas for future research in this topic. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SELECTIONS: Narrative review of the literature from 1977 (first description of EoE) to March 2019, focusing on costs and cost-effectiveness analyses in EoE. RESULTS: High costs in EoE can be related to diagnostic delays, requirement for upper endoscopy with biopsy for diagnosis and monitoring of disease activity, expensive medications currently used off-label, increased food costs related to dietary elimination treatment, frequent doctor visits with subspecialists, and complications or disease exacerbations. Provision of cost-effective care in EoE is an understudied area, and a patient-centric approach is key. There are multiple areas in which future research can make an impact. These include determining predictors of treatment response, minimally or noninvasive methods to monitor disease activity, and validation of the use of multidisciplinary care. CONCLUSION: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is considered to be a rare disease, but the costs of care and burden of disease attributed to EoE are substantial. However, few studies examine either the costs related to EoE or the approach to cost-effective care for the EoE patient. To provide cost-effective care, a patient-centric approach and shared decision-making model are optimal. In addition, a rational strategy for EoE diagnosis and initial treatment, effective maintenance therapy for disease control and ideally to prevent complications, and appropriate long-term monitoring are all required.

A diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis is associated with increased life insurance premiums.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic disease that can be diagnosed at any age, but is not associated with malignancy and does not shorten lifespan. It remains unknown whether an EoE diagnosis affects insurability or insurance premium costs. We therefore aimed to determine whether a diagnosis of EoE affects the costs of life insurance. Our investigation was a secret shopper audit study whereby we contacted national insurance companies in the United States to evaluate the effect of a diagnosis of EoE on life insurance premiums. We constructed standardized case scenarios for males and females, including a 25-year-old and a 48-year-old without other comorbid conditions, who either had or did not have a diagnosis of EoE. Companies were asked for their best estimate for a $100,000 whole life insurance policy. Comparisons between median premiums were made using the Mann-Whitney U test. There were 20 national life insurance companies contacted and a total of 73 quotes were obtained. The median premium rate was similar for EoE and non-EoE cases at the younger age ($828 [IQR $576-1,020] vs. $756 [IQR $504-$804]; P = 0.10). However, the premium for the older case without EoE was 19% less expensive compared to a case with EoE ($1990 [IQR $1,248-2,350] vs. $2,375 [IQR $2,100-2568; P = 0.02]. This finding was not explained by sex or state of residence. Based on these findings, we conclude that life insurance premiums are significantly more expensive in the older patient case with EoE when compared to the same case without EoE. Patients with EoE and their providers should be aware of the additional cost associated with this diagnosis.

Health-Related Quality of Life and Costs Associated With Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated disease characterized by esophageal inflammation and dysfunction. Little is known about the humanistic and economic burden of the disease on patients, their caregivers, and the health care system. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the existing literature on the disease burden of EoE for patients and their caregivers. METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews databases and recent congresses were searched on March 23, 2017, for English-language publications describing the impact of EoE on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in children and adults, and the economic burden associated with the disease. RESULTS: Of 676 articles identified, 22 met the inclusion criteria and were included in this analysis (HRQoL, 13; economic burden, 7; cost effectiveness, 2). The included studies showed that EoE is associated with a significant impact on HRQoL, resulting in disruption to and restrictions on daily life for patients, their caregivers, and, in some instances, their families. Treatment with topical corticosteroids, the 6-food elimination diet, or the cow's milk elimination diet significantly improved the HRQoL of patients with EoE. Symptom severity was associated strongly with the impact of EoE on HRQoL. Medical resource utilization costs for patients with EoE were significantly higher than those for healthy controls. CONCLUSIONS: EoE negatively impacts the HRQoL of patients and their families, and is a burden to the health care system. Although data are sparse, currently available treatments appear to improve HRQoL.

Eosinophilic esophagitis. The North against the South? A bio-economic-social mechanistic approach and clinical implications. / La esofagitis eosinofílica. ¿El Norte contra el Sur? Enfoque mecanicista bio-económico-social e implicaciones clínicas.

Eosinophilic esophagitis is a chronic antigen-mediated disease characterized by esophageal symptoms, esophageal eosinophilia, and the absence of response to proton pump inhibitors. It is the most frequent cause of dysphagia and food impaction in adults. Its incidence and prevalence is very high in the developed countries (USA, Europe, Australia), where its connotation is that of an emerging epidemic. While studies have been published with large case series in the developed countries, those published in Latin America are small or consist of isolated case reports. The differences in the prevalence of the disease between the developed and developing regions are unknown. Genetic or racial causes have been cited. Nevertheless, the epidemic nature of the disease suggests that environmental causes are the most powerful. Based on the published hypotheses, as well as on epidemiologic studies, the present review discusses some of the possible causes of the disparity in the prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis between the two types of countries. The 'hygiene hypothesis' is reviewed, together with the possible relation of Helicobacter pylori, intestinal parasites, and modifications of the esophageal microbiota in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis. In reference to studies conducted in the United States, the clinical behavior and progression of eosinophilic esophagitis in Hispanics is reviewed and a possible predominant phenotype in Mexican and other Latin American patients is discussed. Finally, based on the above, an algorithm for studying the disease in the Latin American countries is proposed.

Utility of Gastric and Duodenal Biopsies During Follow-up Endoscopy in Children With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

OBJECTIVES: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic antigen-mediated immune disorder of the esophagus. Consensus guidelines recommend obtaining esophageal, gastric, and duodenal biopsies at diagnostic endoscopy when EoE is suspected. The utility of repeated gastric and duodenal biopsies during follow-up endoscopy in patients previously diagnosed with EoE is not established. The aim of the present study was to explore the role of gastric and duodenal biopsies in children with an established diagnosis of EoE undergoing repeat endoscopy to assess histological response to treatment. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of children diagnosed with EoE at a tertiary care center was conducted. A total of 160 patients with EoE with demographic clinical, endoscopic, and histological data at diagnosis and follow-up endoscopy were included. The frequency of gastric and duodenal biopsies at follow-up endoscopy with abnormal histology and their correlation to endoscopic findings was determined. RESULTS: At follow-up endoscopy, 83% (132/160) of patients had gastric and 74% (118/160) had duodenal biopsies. Histology was normal in 81% of gastric and 92% of duodenal biopsies. The most frequent gastric abnormalities were chemical and inactive chronic gastritis. The most frequent duodenal abnormality was villous blunting with increased intraepithelial lymphocytes. Two patients with normal gastric and duodenal histology progressed to eosinophilic gastroenteritis at follow-up endoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Gastric and duodenal biopsies obtained in EoE patients during follow-up endoscopy show pathology in a minority of patients, increase costs, and may add potential risk of adverse events. Large multicenter, prospective studies of endoscopic practice during follow-up of EoE are warranted to provide evidence supporting best practices.

Cost Utility Analysis of Topical Steroids Compared With Dietary Elimination for Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Topical corticosteroids or dietary elimination are recommended as first-line therapies for eosinophilic esophagitis, but data to directly compare these therapies are scant. We performed a cost utility comparison of topical corticosteroids and the 6-food elimination diet (SFED) in treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis, from the payer perspective. METHODS: We used a modified Markov model based on current clinical guidelines, in which transition between states depended on histologic response simulated at the individual cohort-member level. Simulation parameters were defined by systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the base-case estimates and bounds of uncertainty for sensitivity analysis. Meta-regression models included adjustment for differences in study and cohort characteristics. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, topical fluticasone was about as effective as SFED but more expensive at a 5-year time horizon ($9261.58 vs $5719.72 per person). SFED was more effective and less expensive than topical fluticasone and topical budesonide in the base-case scenario. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed little uncertainty in relative treatment effectiveness. There was somewhat greater uncertainty in the relative cost of treatments; most simulations found SFED to be less expensive. CONCLUSIONS: In a cost utility analysis comparing topical corticosteroids and SFED for first-line treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis, the therapies were similar in effectiveness. SFED was on average less expensive, and more cost effective in most simulations, than topical budesonide and topical fluticasone, from a payer perspective and not accounting for patient-level costs or quality of life.

The Six-Food Elimination Diet for Eosinophilic Esophagitis Increases Grocery Shopping Cost and Complexity.

The six-food elimination diet (SFED), where dairy, wheat, eggs, soy, nuts, and seafood are avoided, is an effective treatment for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Patient-related costs of this approach, however, are unknown. We aimed to assess the cost of and ease of shopping for an SFED compared to an unrestricted diet. A dietitian with expertise in EoE generated menus meeting dietary requirements for a week's worth of meals for the SFED and an unrestricted diet. We compared prices and the number of missing items for both diets at standard and specialty grocery stores. The average weekly price of the SFED at a standard supermarket was $92.54 compared to $79.84 for an unrestricted diet (p = 0.0001). A patient shopping at a standard grocery store needed a higher proportion of items from a second store compared to an unrestricted diet (32 vs. 3 %, p = 0.0001). The prices of the SFED and unrestricted diet using a specialty supermarket were comparable ($106.47 vs. $105.96, p = 0.81), as was the percentage of items requiring a trip to a second store (6 vs. 2 % items, p = 0.03). Shopping at a specialty grocery store increased weekly grocery costs by $13.93 (p = 0.04) for the SFED and $26.12 (p = 0.03) for the unrestricted diet. In conclusion, for patients shopping at standard grocery stores, the cost of an SFED is higher, and an SFED requires more items from a second store. These differences disappear at specialty grocery stores, but costs were significantly higher. This cost and logistical burden can inform patients when selecting dietary therapy.

Health-care utilization, costs, and the burden of disease related to eosinophilic esophagitis in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has rapidly become a major cause of upper GI morbidity, but health-care costs related to EoE have not been described. This study aimed to estimate EoE-related health-care costs and utilization in the United States. METHODS: We performed a study on health-care utilization of EoE cases compared with age- and sex-matched controls using administrative claims data, representative of the commercially insured population in the United States. Cases of EoE were identified using a previously validated definition. We assessed inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, outpatient prescription, and endoscopy-related costs for patients with EoE, and estimated total costs related to EoE extrapolated to the US population. RESULTS: We identified 8,135 cases of EoE and 32,540 controls. The median total annual cost per EoE case was $3,304 compared with $1,001 for controls (P<0.001). For EoE, the median costs included $2,508/year for outpatient visits, $157 for endoscopies, and $325 for pharmacy claims, compared with $699, $0, and $76 for controls (P<0.001 for all). The overall median cost associated with EoE was $2,302/year/patient. Total costs in the United States ranged from $503 million to $1.36 billion/year, depending on the prevalence estimate, with costs attributable to EoE ranging from $350 to $947 million/year. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with EoE have an estimated annual health-care cost of as much as $1.4 billion in the United States. This represents a remarkable burden of disease for an entity that was essentially unknown two decades ago. These cost data can be used by policy makers to guide resource allocation.

Eosinophilic esophagitis: dilate or medicate? A cost analysis model of the choice of initial therapy.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an increasingly recognized clinical entity. The optimal initial treatment strategy in adults with EoE remains controversial. The aim of this study was to employ a decision analysis model to determine the less costly option between the two most commonly employed treatment strategies in EoE. We constructed a model for an index case of a patient with biopsy-proven EoE who continues to be symptomatic despite proton-pump inhibitor therapy. The following treatment strategies were included: (i) swallowed fluticasone inhaler (followed by esophagogastroduodenoscopy [EGD] with dilation if ineffective); and (ii) EGD with dilation (followed by swallowed fluticasone inhaler if ineffective). The time horizon was 1 year. The model focused on cost analysis of initial treatment strategies. The perspective of the healthcare payer was used. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model. For every patient whose symptoms improved or resolved with the strategy of fluticasone first followed by EGD, if necessary, it cost an average of $1078. Similarly, it cost an average of $1171 per patient if EGD with dilation was employed first. Sensitivity analyses indicated that initial treatment with fluticasone was the less costly strategy to improve dysphagia symptoms as long as the effectiveness of fluticasone remains at or above 0.62. Swallowed fluticasone inhaler (followed by EGD with dilation if necessary) is the more economical initial strategy when compared with EGD with dilation first.

Cost-effectiveness model of endoscopic biopsy for eosinophilic esophagitis in patients with refractory GERD.

OBJECTIVES: The population prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is ~7% in adults. Current American Gastroenterology Association guidelines recommend endoscopic biopsy (Bx) in patients with symptoms of dysphagia. We conducted a cost-effectiveness model to determine if endoscopic Bx is cost effective in patients with refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) without dysphagia. METHODS: We designed a 5-year Markov model to compare costs and quality-adjusted life years for a cohort of 35-year-old patients with GERD refractory to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. We compared upper endoscopy (EGD) with and without Bx for EoE. We modeled that patients with EoE who did not undergo initial biopsy would wait 5 years until the diagnosis would be established via a second endoscopy with biopsy. RESULTS: In patients with refractory GERD without dysphagia, endoscopic Bx for EoE was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $51,420 per quality of life year (QALY). The upper endoscopy with biopsy arm cost $12,490 per patient and was associated with 4.080 QALYs, compared with EGD without Bx arm that cost $12,280 and was associated with 4.076 QALYs. The ICER was <$50,000 per QALY when the prevalence of EoE exceeded 8%, or the time of missed diagnosis was 6 years or greater. The biopsy arm was also cost effective if the QALY associated with symptomatic GERD was ≤0.93, cost of 3-month course of PPI therapy ≥$770 cost of fluticasone <$650, probability of EoE resolved on PPI ≤25%, symptom resolution on fluticasone ≥70%, cost endoscopy with biopsy ≤$520, or the cost of endoscopy without biopsy exceeded $300. CONCLUSIONS: Upper endoscopy with Bx for EoE appears to be a cost-effective approach in patients when the prevalence of EoE is 8% or greater.