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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Price Is Right: Exploring Prescription Drug Coverage Barriers for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Using Threshold Pricing Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prescription drug costs exert profound effects on commercial insurance coverage and access to effective therapy. AIMS: We aimed to assess threshold pricing to achieve budget neutrality of FDA-approved drugs treating irritable bowel syndrome from an insurance perspective, based on cost-savings resulting in decreased healthcare utilization through effective disease management. METHODS: We constructed a decision-analytic model from an insurance perspective to assess the budget impact of IBS prescription drugs under usual insurance coverage levels in practice: (1) unrestricted drug access or (2) step therapy in a primary care population of middle-age, care-seeking IBS patients. Budget-neutral drug prices were then calculated which resulted in $0 budget impact to insurers with a short-term, one-year time horizon. RESULTS: If used according to FDA labeling, IBS-D drugs cost between $4778 and $16,844 per year and IBS-C drugs cost between $4319 and $4955 per year. These drug costs often exceed insurance expenditures of $6999 for IBS-D and $3929 for IBS-C if left untreated. Therefore, for drugs to have $0 budget impact to insurers, their prices would need to be discounted 36.7-74.2% for IBS-D drugs and 59.3-82.5% for IBS-C. IBS drugs are already priced to support step therapy "failing one of several common, inexpensive IBS treatments with a responder rate > 30-40%," reflecting the subpopulation with more severe disease and greater healthcare costs. CONCLUSIONS: Broader prescription drug coverage for patients failing common, inexpensive IBS treatments to which at least 30-40% of patients would typically respond appears warranted to enable gastroenterologists to offer personalized approaches targeting specific mechanisms of this heterogeneous disease.