Health care costs of complex perianal fistula in Crohn's disease

AIM

To evaluate the use of health care resources and the associated costs of complex perianal Crohn's disease (CD) from the National Health System perspective.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, observational study in which gastroenterologists from 11 hospitals in the Community of Madrid took part. Data was collected on the direct healthcare resources (pharmacological treatments, surgical procedures, laboratory/diagnostic tests, visits to specialists and emergency departments, and hospitalizations) consumed by 97 adult patients with complex perianal CD which was active at some point between January 1, 2005, and case history review.

RESULTS

We recorded 527 treatments: 73.1% pharmacological (32.3% antibiotic, 20.5% immunomodulator, 20.3% biological) and 26.9% surgical. Mean annual global cost was €8,289/patient, 75.3% (€6,242) of which was accounted for by pharmacological treatments (€13.44 antibiotics; €1,136 immunomodulators; €5,093 biological agents), 12.4% (€1,027) by hospitalizations and surgery, 7.7% (€640) by medical visits, 4.2% (€350) by laboratory/diagnostic tests, and 0.4% (€30) by emergency department visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacological therapies, and in particular biological agents, are the main cost driver in complex perianal CD; costs due to surgery and hospitalizations are much lower.

To plug or not to plug: a cost-effectiveness analysis for complex anal fistula

BACKGROUND

Complex anal fistulas are unsuitable for fistulotomy because of the risk of fecal incontinence. The anal fistula plug (AFP) has demonstrated fistula healing without sphincter division. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the AFP compared to the endoanal advancement flap (EAAF) as an alternative sphincter-preserving option for complex anal fistulas.

METHODS

The study included 24 patients who underwent treatment for complex anal fistulas. Healing and complication rates of a prospective cohort of AFP patients (n=12) were compared to a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent EAAF (n=12). Cost data were collected after validated healthcare reporting standards. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed, including extensive modeling of fistula healing rates.

RESULTS

Both cohorts (12 AFP patients and 12 EAAF patients) had similar patient demographics and fistula characteristics. Fistula healing was achieved in 50% (5/12) of AFP patients and 33% (4/12) of EAAF patients (P=.680). Median clinical follow-up was 28 weeks for the AFP patients and 14 weeks for the EAAF patients, whereas median recurrence time was 17.6 weeks (range, 0.4-43.9) and 12.6 weeks (range, 2-34.3), respectively. Use of the AFP instead of the EAAF saved $1,588 (95% confidence interval [CI], $1,211-$1,965; P<.0001), and 1.5 hospital days per healed fistula (P=.0002). This cost-saving effect persisted and amounted to $825 (95% CI, $133-$1,517; P=.022) when the cost estimates were adjusted for the reduction in the hospital length of stay. Extensive modeling over a large range of fistula healing rates confirmed the cost-effectiveness of the AFP.

CONCLUSION

The AFP is a cost-saving procedure for complex anal fistulas compared to the EAAF.

[Clinical research of thread-dragging through fistula method in treating patients with simple anorectal fistula]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of thread-dragging through fistula method in treating patients with simple anorectal fistula.

METHODS

In this multi-centered, prospective, and randomized controlled clinical trial, 244 patients with simple low or high anorectal fistula were randomly divided into study group (with the method of thread-dragging through fistula) and control group (with the method of incision or thread-drawing). The healing time and curative rate of anorectal fistula, and the integral calculus of clinical symptom and life quality evaluations before and after treatment were all examined. The maximal anal canal squeeze pressure was measured to compare the therapeutic safety between these two groups. The health economical benefits were also assessed to determine which therapeutic method was more economical.

RESULTS

The curative rate of simple low and high anorectal fistula were of no significant differences between the study group and the control group. The healing time of simple low anorectal fistula in the study group and the control group were (22.26+/-8.67) d and (31.41+/-11.39) d respectively, while the healing time of simple high anorectal fistula in the study group and the control group were (24.73+/-8.15) d and (32.20+/-12.60) d respectively, and there revealed significant differences between these two groups. Each integral calculus of clinical symptom evaluation in the study group was not obviously different from those in the control group besides the integral calculus of anal sphincter function. The integral calculus of life quality between the study group and the control group of simple low anorectal fistula had no significant differences. The integral calculus of anal sphincter function and confidence in treatment in the study group of high anorectal fistula were better than those in the control group. The hospitalization expense of the study group was remarkably lower than that of the control group. The maximal anal canal squeeze pressure in the study group after treatment was not reduced obviously as compared with that in the same group before treatment, while it was decreased significantly in the control group after treatment as compared with those in the same group before treatment and in the study group after treatment.

CONCLUSION

The method of thread-dragging through fistula in treating simple low and high anorectal fistula can shorten the course of the disease, save the hospitalization expenses, improve the life quality of the patients, and protect the anal sphincter function.