Lisa E Young1, Naomi C Sacks2,3, Philip L Cyr2,4, Abhishek Sharma2,5, David N Dahdal1. 1. Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc., Parsippany, NJ, USA. 2. Precision Health Economics, Boston, MA, USA. 3. School of Medicine, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA. 4. University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA. 5. Department of Global Health and Center for Global Health & Development, School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate outcomes of colorectal screening using sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate compared with other prescription bowel-preparation agents. Primary endpoints were rates of procedure-associated hospitalizations, diagnosis at hospitalization, and rates of early repeat screenings. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified patients using the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan databases, which contain fully adjudicated, de-identified, medical- and prescription-drug claims, as well as demographic and enrollment information for individuals with commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare supplemental insurance coverage. Patients who had a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy over a 3-year period were identified using International Classification of Diseases Clinical Modification procedure codes, recorded on claims from physicians and facilities. First, screening colonoscopy was identified for each patient, and the study was limited to those patients who could be observed for ≥6 months before and 3 months after the screening procedure. Total number of hospitalizations and rates of early repeat screenings were evaluated for all patients who received sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate and compared with those who received other bowel-preparation agents. Individual prescription medications that could affect the outcome of the cleansing agent were identified; further evaluations were made to establish whether patients had comorbid conditions, such as chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, or psychiatric illness. Statistical methods included descriptive statistics, two-tailed t-tests, and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 566,628 procedures were identified in the MarketScan databases and included in the study. Sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate performed well in terms of safety outcomes, with no hospitalizations due to diagnosis of hyponatremia, dehydration, or other fluid disorders in the 10 days after procedure. Early repeat rates among sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate patients were comparable with rates observed for all other cleansing agents. CONCLUSION: Outcomes of colorectal screening using sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate were not significantly different compared with other prescription bowel-preparation agents.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate outcomes of colorectal screening using sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate compared with other prescription bowel-preparation agents. Primary endpoints were rates of procedure-associated hospitalizations, diagnosis at hospitalization, and rates of early repeat screenings. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified patients using the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan databases, which contain fully adjudicated, de-identified, medical- and prescription-drug claims, as well as demographic and enrollment information for individuals with commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare supplemental insurance coverage. Patients who had a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy over a 3-year period were identified using International Classification of Diseases Clinical Modification procedure codes, recorded on claims from physicians and facilities. First, screening colonoscopy was identified for each patient, and the study was limited to those patients who could be observed for ≥6 months before and 3 months after the screening procedure. Total number of hospitalizations and rates of early repeat screenings were evaluated for all patients who received sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate and compared with those who received other bowel-preparation agents. Individual prescription medications that could affect the outcome of the cleansing agent were identified; further evaluations were made to establish whether patients had comorbid conditions, such as chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, or psychiatric illness. Statistical methods included descriptive statistics, two-tailed t-tests, and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 566,628 procedures were identified in the MarketScan databases and included in the study. Sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate performed well in terms of safety outcomes, with no hospitalizations due to diagnosis of hyponatremia, dehydration, or other fluid disorders in the 10 days after procedure. Early repeat rates among sodium picosulfate and magnesium citratepatients were comparable with rates observed for all other cleansing agents. CONCLUSION: Outcomes of colorectal screening using sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate were not significantly different compared with other prescription bowel-preparation agents.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bowel preparation; Prepopik; colonoscopy preparation; colorectal cancer screening; health economics; health insurance; outcomes research; sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate
Authors: David Lieberman; Marion Nadel; Robert A Smith; Wendy Atkin; Subash B Duggirala; Robert Fletcher; Seth N Glick; C Daniel Johnson; Theodore R Levin; John B Pope; Michael B Potter; David Ransohoff; Douglas Rex; Robert Schoen; Paul Schroy; Sidney Winawer Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Charles J Kahi; C Richard Boland; Jason A Dominitz; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Tonya Kaltenbach; David Lieberman; Theodore R Levin; Douglas J Robertson; Douglas K Rex Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Matthew A Weir; Jamie L Fleet; Chris Vinden; Salimah Z Shariff; Kuan Liu; Haoyuan Song; Arsh K Jain; Sonja Gandhi; William F Clark; Amit X Garg Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-03-04 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Nancy N Baxter; Meredith A Goldwasser; Lawrence F Paszat; Refik Saskin; David R Urbach; Linda Rabeneck Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Philip O Katz; Douglas K Rex; Michael Epstein; Nav K Grandhi; Stephen Vanner; Lawrence C Hookey; Vivian Alderfer; Raymond E Joseph Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-01-15 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Naomi C Sacks; Abhishek Sharma; Philip L Cyr; Gerald Bertiger; David N Dahdal; Stuart P Brogadir Journal: Clin Exp Gastroenterol Date: 2018-08-16