How does comorbidity affect cost of health care in patients with irritable bowel syndrome? A cohort study in general practice

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is associated with other disorders (comorbidity), reduced quality of life and increased use of health resources. We aimed to explore the impact of comorbidity on cost of health care in patients with IBS in general practice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In this cohort study 208 consecutive patients with IBS (Rome II) were recruited. Sociodemographic data, IBS symptoms, and comorbidity (somatic symptoms, organic diseases and psychiatric disorders) were assessed at baseline. Based on a follow up interview after 6-9 months and use of medical records, IBS and non-IBS related health resource use were measured as consultations, hospitalisations, use of medications and alternative health care products and sick leave days. Costs were calculated by national tariffs and reported in Norwegian Kroner (NOK, 1 EURO equals 8 NOK). Multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of costs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 164 patients (mean age 52 years, 69% female, median duration of IBS 17 years) were available at follow up, 143 patients (88%) had consulted their GP of whom 31 (19%) had consulted for IBS. Mean number of sick- leave days for IBS and comorbidity were 1.7 and 16.3 respectively (p < 0.01), costs related to IBS and comorbidity were 954 NOK and 14854 NOK respectively (p < 0.001). Age, organic diseases and somatic symptoms, but not IBS severity, were significant predictors for total costs.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Costs for health resource use among patients with IBS in general practice were largely explained by comorbidity, which generated ten times the costs for IBS.</p

Review article: the economic impact of the irritable bowel syndrome

Background: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic functional disorder of the gastrointestinal system affecting a large number of people worldwide. Whilst it has no attributable mortality, it has substantial impact on patients' quality of life (QoL) and is associated with considerable healthcare resource use. Aim: To review the economic impact of IBS, firstly on the individual, secondly on healthcare systems internationally and thirdly to society. Methods: Appropriate databases were searched for relevant papers using the terms: Irritable Bowel Syndrome; IBS; irritable colon; functional bowel/colonic disease; economics; health care/service costs; health expenditure/resources; health care/service utilisation; productivity. Results: Irritable bowel syndrome impacts most substantially on patients' work and social life. Reduction in QoL is such that on average patients would sacrifice between 10 and 15 years of their remaining life expectancy for an immediate cure. Between 15% and 43% of patients pay for remedies. No studies quantify loss of earnings related to IBS. Direct care costs are substantial; 48% of patients incur some costs in any year with annual international estimates per patient of: USA $742–$7547, UK £90–£316, France €567–€862, Canada $259, Germany €791, Norway NOK 2098 (€262) and Iran$92. Minimising extensive diagnostic investigations could generate savings and has been shown as not detrimental to patients. Cost to industry internationally through absenteeism and presenteeism related to IBS is estimated between £400 and £900 per patient annually. Conclusions: costs to patients, healthcare systems and society. Considerable benefit could be obtained from effective interventions

Systematic review with meta-analysis: the accuracy of diagnosing irritable bowel syndrome with symptoms, biomarkers and/or psychological markers

Background: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a complex, heterogeneous disease which can be challenging to diagnose. No study has identified and assessed the accuracy of all available methods of diagnosing IBS. Aim: To conduct a systematic review of the literature to identify and assess accuracy of symptom-based diagnostic criteria, biomarkers, psychological markers or combinations thereof. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and EMBASE Classic were searched (until April 2015) to identify studies reporting accuracy of available methods to diagnose IBS in adult populations. Eligible studies assessed accuracy of these diagnostic tests against an accepted reference standard. Data were extracted to calculate positive and negative likelihood ratios, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), of the diagnostic test utilised. Where more than one study used the same test, data were pooled in a meta-analysis. Results: Twenty-two studies (7106 patients) were eligible. Positive and negative likelihood ratios of the current gold standard, the Rome III criteria, were 3.35 (95% CI: 2.97–3.79) and 0.39 (95% CI: 0.34–0.46), similar to other symptom-based criteria. Eleven biomarkers performed no better than symptom-based criteria. Psychological markers performed well in one study. Five different combinations were assessed. The best in terms of positive likelihood ratio was faecal calprotectin, intestinal permeability and Rome I criteria (26.4; 95% CI: 11.4–61.9), and in terms of negative likelihood ratio serum-based biomarkers and psychological markers (0.18; 95% CI: 0.12–0.25). Conclusions: Symptom-based diagnostic criteria, biomarkers and psychological markers performed modestly in predicting IBS. Combining symptoms with markers appears more effective, and may represent the way forward in the diagnosis of IBS