Irritable bowel syndrome: toward a cost-effective management approach

OBJECTIVE

To examine the economic implications of current irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) management practices and formulate recommendations based on these implications.

METHODS

Relevant English-language research publications in which the direct and indirect costs of IBS were examined, identified using a search of records contained in Medline.

RESULTS

Review of the identified publications indicates that in Western nations, IBS management is associated with high direct costs (particularly for diagnostic testing, office visits, pharmacotherapy, and emergency department visits). Indirect costs, associated with lost wages and decreased productivity, account for the largest proportion of the IBS economic burden. Moreover, rapid projected growth in IBS disease-related costs indicates a need for more focused attention toward improved treatment of IBS. More cost-effective management might be achieved by diagnosing and instituting nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic management earlier in the disease process. Under such an approach, patients are classified based on symptoms and a therapeutic trial is begun. More extensive, expensive diagnostic testing is reserved for patients refractory to treatment or for whom serious disease must be ruled out.

CONCLUSION

IBS is a condition with high direct and indirect costs. Management strategies should be evaluated both on their clinical efficacy and on their cost effectiveness. As new, IBS-specific pharmacotherapies become available, the ability to diagnose and manage the condition in a cost-effective manner can be improved.

Determination of ambulatory blood pressure control in treated patients with controlled office blood pressures

Office blood pressure measurement is the standard for assessing blood pressure control. Many patients, however, take their antihypertensive medication in the morning, so they are likely to have their office blood pressure measured during the maximal antihypertensive effect. It is therefore unknown whether patients deemed by office blood pressure to be controlled do in fact have 24h blood pressure control. The objectives of this study were to determine blood pressure control, including blood pressure control while the patients were awake and during the first 6 hours after awakening, by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in treated hypertensive patients deemed by office blood pressure measurements to be controlled. A total of 103 patients on a stable antihypertensive regimen and deemed to be controlled in terms of office blood pressure values (mean office blood pressure <140/90mmHg) were enrolled. Patients were stratified by cardiovascular risk status and the number of antihypertensive medications that they were taking. Seventy-eight out of 103 participants successfully completed ABPM. The mean ambulatory blood pressure was greater than 135/85mmHg and 140/90mmHg while awake for 37% (95% confidence interval [CI] 26-48%) and 23% (95% CI 14-32%) of all patients respectively. Forty-eight per cent (95% CI 33-63%) of patients taking monotherapy versus 25% (95% CI 11-39%) of patients on multiple antihypertensive medications were uncontrolled (P=0.039) using 135/85mmHg as the reference value. Thirty-one per cent (95% CI, 17-44%) of patients on monotherapy versus 14% (95% CI 3-25%) of patients on multiple antihypertensive medication were uncontrolled (P=0.064) using 140/90mmHg instead. These results demonstrate that a high number of patients deemed by office blood pressure to be under control do not have adequate blood pressure control based on ABPM.