Article

Direct health care costs of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis in US children and adults.

Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Department of Pediatrics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA.
Gastroenterology (Impact Factor: 12.82). 09/2008; 135(6):1907-13. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.09.012
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Data regarding the health care costs of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in the United States are limited. The objectives of this study were to estimate the direct costs of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) in the United States, describe the distribution of costs among inpatient, outpatient, and pharmaceutical services, and identify sociodemographic factors influencing these costs.
We extracted medical and pharmacy claims from an administrative database containing insurance claims from 87 health plans in 33 states, occurring between 2003 and 2004. We identified cases of CD and UC using an administrative definition. For each case, we selected up to 3 non-IBD controls. Claims were classified as inpatient, outpatient, or pharmaceutical according to Current Procedural Terminology codes or National Drug Codes. Costs were based on the paid amount of each claim. IBD-attributable costs were estimated by subtracting costs for non-IBD patients from those for patients with IBD. Logistic regression was used to identify the sociodemographic factors affecting these costs.
We identified 9056 patients with CD and 10,364 patients with UC. Mean annual costs for CD and UC were $8265 and $5066, respectively. For CD, 31% of costs were attributable to hospitalization, 33% to outpatient care, and 35% to pharmaceutical claims. The corresponding distribution for UC was 38%, 35%, and 27%, respectively. Costs were significantly higher for children younger than 20 years compared with adults, but this did not vary substantially by sex or region.
This study demonstrates a substantial economic burden of IBD and can be used to inform health policy.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
125 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background. Socioeconomic factors and insurance status have not been correlated with differential use of healthcare services in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Aim. To describe IBD-related expenditures based on insurance and household income with the use of inpatient, outpatient, emergency, and office-based services, and prescribed medications in the United States (US). Methods. We evaluated the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 1996 to 2011 of individuals with Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC). Nationally weighted means, proportions, and multivariate regression models examined the relationships between income and insurance status with expenditures. Results. Annual per capita mean expenditures for CD, UC, and all IBD were $10,364 (N = 238), $7,827 (N = 95), and $9,528, respectively, significantly higher than non-IBD ($4,314, N = 276, 372, p < 0.05). Publicly insured patients incurred the highest costs ($18,067) over privately insured ($8,014, p < 0.05) or uninsured patients ($5,129, p < 0.05). Among all IBD patients, inpatient care composed the highest proportion of costs ($3,392, p < 0.05). Inpatient costs were disproportionately higher for publicly insured patients. Public insurance had higher odds of total costs than private (OR 2.13, CI [1.08-4.19]) or no insurance (OR 4.94, CI [1.26-19.47]), with increased odds for inpatient and emergency care. Private insurance had higher costs associated with outpatient care, office-based care, and prescribed medicines. Low-income patients had lower costs associated with outpatient (OR 0.38, CI [0.15-0.95]) and office-based care (OR 0.21, CI [0.07-0.62]). Conclusions. In the US, high inpatient utilization among publicly insured patients is a previously unrecognized driver of high IBD costs. Bridging this health services gap between SES strata for acute care services may curtail direct IBD-related costs.
    01/2014; 2:e587. DOI:10.7717/peerj.587
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: & Aims: There is controversy over the best treatment for patients with Crohn's disease, due to the lack of direct comparative trials. We compared therapies for induction and maintenance of remission in patients with Crohn's disease, based on direct and indirect evidence. We performed systematic reviews of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central databases, through June 2014. We identified randomized controlled trials (n=39) comparing methotrexate, azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine, infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab, vedolizumab, or combined therapies with placebo or an active agent for induction and maintenance of remission in adult patients with Crohn's disease. Pairwise treatment effects were estimated through a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis and reported as odds ratios (OR) with a 95% credible interval (CrI). Infliximab, the combination of infliximab and azathioprine (infliximab+azathioprine), adalimumab, and vedolizumab were superior to placebo for induction of remission. In pair-wise comparisons of anti-tumor necrosis factor agents, infliximab+azathioprine (OR, 3.1; 95% CrI, 1.4-7.7) and adalimumab (OR, 2.1; 95% CrI, 1.0-4.6) were superior to certolizumab for induction of remission. All treatments were superior to placebo for maintaining remission, except for the combination of infliximab and methotrexate. Adalimumab, infliximab, and infliximab+azathioprine were superior to azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine: adalimumab (OR, 2.9; 95% CrI, 1.6-5.1), infliximab (OR, 1.6; 95% CrI, 1.0-2.5), infliximab+azathioprine (OR, 3.0; 95% CrI, 1.7-5.5) for maintenance of remission. Adalimumab and infliximab+azathioprine were superior to certolizumab: adalimumab (OR, 2.5; 95% CrI, 1.4-4.6) and infliximab+azathioprine (OR, 2.6; 95% CrI, 1.3-6.0). Adalimumab was superior to vedolizumab (OR, 2.4; 95% CrI, 1.2-4.6). Based on a network meta-analysis, adalimumab and infliximab+azathioprine are the most effective therapies for induction and maintenance of remission of Crohn's disease. Copyright © 2014 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Gastroenterology 10/2014; 148(2). DOI:10.1053/j.gastro.2014.10.011 · 12.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 01/2013; 25(7):790-797. DOI:10.1097/MEG.0b013e32836019b9 · 2.15 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
2 Downloads
Available from