Variation of health-care resource utilization according to GERD-associated complications.

Complications associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) can include esophageal stricture, Barrett's esophagus, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, and extraesophageal symptoms. The impact of GERD-associated complications on health-care utilization deserves further evaluation. We identified commercial enrollees 18-75 years old with claims for GERD (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification Codes: 530.81 or 530.11) and subsequent usage of proton pump inhibitors from 01/01/05 to 06/30/09. The initial GERD diagnosis date was designated as the index date, and patients were studied for 6 months preindex and postindex. Eligible patients were subsequently stratified based on medical claims for GERD-associated complications as follows: stage A (GERD diagnosis, no other symptoms), stage B (GERD + extraesophageal symptoms), stage C (GERD + Barrett's esophagus), stage D (GERD + esophageal stricture), and stage E (GERD + iron-deficiency anemia or acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage). Patient characteristics, health-care utilization, and costs were compared between stage A and each stage with complicated GERD (B-D). Of the 174,597 patients who were eligible for analysis, 74% were classified as stage A, 20% stage B, 1% stage C, 2% stage D, and 3% stage E. Relative to stage A, patients in stages C, D, and E were significantly more likely to visit a gastroenterologist (13% vs. 68%, 71%, and 38%, respectively) and had higher rates of esophageal ulcers (0.3% vs. 8%, 5%, and 3%, respectively) and Nissen fundoplication (0.05% vs. 0.6%, 0.3%, and 0.2%, respectively). Six-month GERD-related costs ranged from $615/patient (stage A) to $1714/patient (stage D); all-cause costs ranged from $4195/patient (stage A) to $11,340/patient (stage E). Compared with stage A, all other cohorts had significantly higher all-cause and GERD-related costs (P < 0.0001 for all comparisons). While patients with more severe GERD represented a relatively small portion of the GERD cohort, they demonstrated significantly greater health-care costs and overall utilization than patients with uncomplicated GERD.

A cost-utility analysis comparing omeprazole with ranitidine in the maintenance therapy of peptic esophageal stricture.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have suggested that patients receiving omeprazole for prophylaxis against peptic esophageal stricture recurrence have less dysphagia and require fewer repeat dilations than patients receiving ranitidine. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental utility gain and associated incremental cost of omeprazole compared with those of ranitidine for the maintenance therapy of patients with peptic stricture who required esophageal dilation. METHODS: Decision analysis using SMLTREE software was used to compare the incremental cost-utility of omeprazole 20 mg once daily with that of ranitidine 150 mg bid for one year. Variables were estimated from the literature, hospital data, and utility analyses involving patients with peptic stricture and health professionals. The primary outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. RESULTS: The incremental cost of omeprazole compared with that of ranitidine was $556 per patient treated. The incremental utility gain of omeprazole was 0.0112 QALYs. Overall, the incremental cost:utility ratio of omeprazole in the maintenance therapy of patients with peptic stricture was $49,600 per QALY gained. A sensitivity analysis revealed that the estimates with the greatest impact on the cost:utility ratio were disutility associated with dysphagia and dilation, the probability of requiring redilation and the cost of medications. CONCLUSIONS: Omeprazole 20 mg once daily is associated with greater utility and higher cost than ranitidine 150 mg bid when used as prophylaxis against stricture recurrence. Omeprazole may be considered clinically and economically sufficient enough to warrant widespread use in this setting.

Esophageal dilation can be done safely using selective fluoroscopy and single dilating sessions.

Maxims for safe esophageal dilation have included recommendations to use fluoroscopy in all instances and to limit dilation sessions to 2-mm increments. We reviewed a 34-month experience of all esophageal dilations undertaken at a large multispecialty clinic to define adherence to these recommendations and to delineate whether deviation was associated with significant complications. Four hundred thirty-two patients underwent 716 courses of esophageal dilation during this time, 92% of whom had benign disease. Eighty-nine percent of patients were dilated with polyvinyl dilators (Savary/American) and only 8% of these patients required fluoroscopic monitoring for the bougienage. Seventy-eight percent of the dilating sessions for patients without achalasia were undertaken using either a single large dilator (> or = 45 Fr) or employed incremental dilator sizes > 2 mm (6 Fr) in a single session. There was a single perforation in 662 nonachalasia dilations and this was a consequence of attempted placement of an esophageal endoprosthesis. We conclude that use of guide wire technology and newer dilating techniques do away with the need for routine fluoroscopic control. Moreover, single large dilators or dilator increments > 2 mm may be safely used, contingent on endoscopic stricture assessment.