Literature DB >> 18377705

Timely confirmation of gastro-esophageal reflux disease via pH monitoring: estimating budget impact on managed care organizations.

W C Lee1, Y C Yeh, B E Lacy, J E Pandolfino, J V Brill, M L Weinstein, A M Carlson, M J Williams, M R Wittek, C L Pashos.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend the use of pH monitoring to confirm the diagnosis of acid reflux in patients with a normal endoscopy. This analysis evaluated the financial impact of pH monitoring with the wireless pH capsule on a managed care organization (MCO) in the United States.
METHODS: A decision model was constructed to project total 1-year costs to manage GERD symptoms with and without the adoption of wireless pH capsules in a hypothetical MCO with 10 000 eligible adult enrollees, of whom 600 presented with GERD-like symptoms. Costs of GERD diagnosis, treatment, and symptom management for those in whom a GERD diagnosis was ruled out by pH monitoring were assessed. The incremental per-member-per-month (PMPM) and per-treated-member-per-month (PTMPM) costs were the primary outcomes. Data sources included literature, expert input, and standardized fee schedules.
RESULTS: An increase of 10 percentage points in the use of pH monitoring with wireless pH capsules yielded incremental PMPM and PTMPM costs of $0.029 and $0.481, respectively. The costs of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy to the plan dropped to $236,363 from $238,086, while increases were observed in pH monitoring (from $16 739 to $21 973) and non-GERD therapy costs (from $1392 to $1740). The results were sensitive to the percentage of patients requiring repeat endoscopy before wireless pH monitoring and the cost of PPIs.
CONCLUSIONS: Timely and increased use of pH monitoring as recommended in published guidelines leads to less unnecessary use of PPIs with a modest budgetary impact on health plans.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18377705     DOI: 10.1185/030079908x280680

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin        ISSN: 0300-7995            Impact factor:   2.580


  9 in total

Review 1.  Budget-impact analyses: a critical review of published studies.

Authors:  Ewa Orlewska; Laszlo Gulácsi
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Many patients continue using proton pump inhibitors after negative results from tests for reflux disease.

Authors:  Andrew J Gawron; Jami Rothe; Angela J Fought; Anita Fareeduddin; Erin Toto; Lubomyr Boris; Peter J Kahrilas; John E Pandolfino
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2012-02-22       Impact factor: 11.382

3.  Proton Pump Inhibitor Nonresponders.

Authors:  Brian E Lacy
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2015-07

4.  Early referral for esophageal pH monitoring is more cost-effective than prolonged empiric trials of proton-pump inhibitors for suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  David A Kleiman; Toni Beninato; Brian P Bosworth; Laurent Brunaud; Thomas Ciecierega; Carl V Crawford; Brian G Turner; Thomas J Fahey; Rasa Zarnegar
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2013-11-09       Impact factor: 3.452

5.  The value of early wireless esophageal pH monitoring in diagnosing functional heartburn in refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  Eun-Young Park; Myung-Gyu Choi; Meonggi Baeg; Chul-Hyun Lim; Jinsu Kim; Yukyung Cho; Jaemyung Park; Inseok Lee; Sangwoo Kim; Kyuyong Choi
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2013-06-14       Impact factor: 3.199

6.  Ambulatory Reflux Monitoring Guides Proton Pump Inhibitor Discontinuation in Patients With Gastroesophageal Reflux Symptoms: A Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Rena Yadlapati; Melina Masihi; C Prakash Gyawali; Dustin A Carlson; Peter J Kahrilas; Billy Darren Nix; Anand Jain; Joseph R Triggs; Michael F Vaezi; Leila Kia; Alexander Kaizer; John E Pandolfino
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2020-09-16       Impact factor: 22.682

7.  Unsedated peroral wireless pH capsule placement vs. standard pH testing: a randomized study and cost analysis.

Authors:  Christopher N Andrews; Daniel C Sadowski; Adriana Lazarescu; Chad Williams; Emil Neshev; Martin Storr; Flora Au; Steven J Heitman
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-05-31       Impact factor: 3.067

8.  Symptom characteristics and psychosomatic profiles in different spectrum of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  Chul-Hyun Lim; Myung-Gyu Choi; Myong Ki Baeg; Sung Jin Moon; Jin Su Kim; Yu Kyung Cho; Jae Myung Park; In Seok Lee; Sang Woo Kim; Kyu Yong Choi
Journal:  Gut Liver       Date:  2013-11-05       Impact factor: 4.519

Review 9.  Modern diagnosis of GERD: the Lyon Consensus.

Authors:  C Prakash Gyawali; Peter J Kahrilas; Edoardo Savarino; Frank Zerbib; Francois Mion; André J P M Smout; Michael Vaezi; Daniel Sifrim; Mark R Fox; Marcelo F Vela; Radu Tutuian; Jan Tack; Albert J Bredenoord; John Pandolfino; Sabine Roman
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2018-02-03       Impact factor: 23.059

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.