Eric D Shah1, Jessica K Salwen-Deremer2, Peter R Gibson3, Jane G Muir3, Shanti Eswaran4, William D Chey4. 1. Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire. Electronic address: eric.d.shah@hitchcock.org. 2. Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire; Department of Psychiatry, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Zsa Zsa R M Weerts; Brigitte A B Essers; Daisy M A E Jonkers; Jeresa I A Willems; Deborah J P A Janssen; Ben J M Witteman; Cees H M Clemens; Audrey Westendorp; Ad A M Masclee; Daniel Keszthelyi Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 4.623