4.7 Article

Comparing Costs and Outcomes of Treatments for Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Diarrhea: Cost-Benefit Analysis

Journal

CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages 136-+

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.09.043

Keywords

Value; Value-Based Care; Economic Analysis; Markov; Pricing; QALY; Comparative Effectiveness; Coverage; ICER

Funding

  1. AGA Research Foundation's 2019 AGA-Shire Research Scholar Award in Functional GI and Motility Disorders

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study assessed the cost-benefit of treatments for IBS with diarrhea from insurer and patient perspectives, finding that prescription drugs and neuro-modulators were preferred by patients due to reduced lost wages and out-of-pocket costs. Costs were critical determinants of treatment value, with divergent cost drivers explaining misalignment between patient and insurer preferences.
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 neuro-modulators 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

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available