Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A budget impact analysis of a magnetic sphincter augmentation device for the treatment of medication-refractory mechanical gastroesophageal reflux disease: a United States payer perspective

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Medication-refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is sometimes treated with laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF); however, this is a non-reversible procedure associated with important side effects and the need for repeat surgery. Removable magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) devices are an alternative, effective, and safe treatment option for such patients who have some lower esophageal sphincter function. The objective of this study was to assess the economic impact of introducing MSA technology (i.e., LINX Reflux Management System) into current practice from a US-payer perspective.

Methods

An economic budget impact model was developed over a 1-year time horizon that compared current treatment of GERD patients who are medically managed (but refractory) or receiving LNF to future treatment of GERD patients that included a mix of patients treated with medical management only, LNF, or MSA. Resources included within the analyses were index procedures (inpatient and outpatient use), reoperations (revisions and removals), readmissions, healthcare visits, diagnostic tests, procedures, and medications. Medicare payment rates were typically used to inform unit costs.

Results

Assuming a hypothetical commercial insurance population of 1 million members, the base-case analysis estimated a net cost savings of $111,367 with introduction of the MSA. This translates to a savings of $0.01 per member per month. Results were largely driven by avoided inpatient procedures with use of the MSA device. Alternative analyses exploring the potential impact of increasing surgical volumes predicted that results would remain cost saving if the proportion of MSA market share taken from LNF was ≥ 90%.

Conclusions

This study predicts that the introduction of the MSA device would lead to favorable budget impact results for the treatment of medication-refractory mechanical GERD for commercial payers. Future analyses will benefit from inclusion of middle-ground treatments as well as longer time horizons.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gawron AJ, French DD, Pandolfino JE, Howden CW (2014) Economic evaluations of gastroesophageal reflux disease medical management. Pharmacoeconomics 32:745–758

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. El-Serag HB, Sweet S, Winchester CC, Dent J (2013) Update on the epidemiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Reynolds JL, Zehetner J, Nieh A, Bildzukewicz N, Sandhu K, Katkhouda N, Lipham JC (2016) Charges, outcomes, and complications: a comparison of magnetic sphincter augmentation versus laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for the treatment of GERD. Surg Endosc 30:3225–3230

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gregory D, Scotti D, Buck D, Triadafilopoulos G (2016) Budget impact analysis to estimate the cost dynamics of treating refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease with radiofrequency energy: a payer perspective. Managed care (Langhorne, Pa) 25:42–50

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ngamruengphong S, Leontiadis GI, Radhi S, Dentino A, Nugent K (2011) Proton pump inhibitors and risk of fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Am J Gastroenterol 106:1209

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kwok CS, Arthur AK, Anibueze CI, Singh S, Cavallazzi R, Loke YK (2012) Risk of clostridium difficile infection with acid suppressing drugs and antibiotics: meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 107:1011

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. El-Serag H, Becher A, Jones R (2010) Systematic review: persistent reflux symptoms on proton pump inhibitor therapy in primary care and community studies. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 32:720–737

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Toghanian S, Johnson DA, Stålhammar N-O, Zerbib F (2011) Burden of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in patients with persistent and intense symptoms despite proton pump inhibitor therapy. Clin Drug Invest 31:703–715

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Richter JE (2013) Gastroesophageal reflux disease treatment: side effects and complications of fundoplication. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 11:465–471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Subramanian CR, Triadafilopoulos G (2014) Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterol Rep 3:41–53

    Google Scholar 

  11. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2012) LINX Reflux Management System - Instructions for Use

  12. Bell R, Lipham J, Louie B, Williams V, Luketich J, Hill M, Richards W, Dunst C, Lister D, McDowell-Jacobs L (2018) Laparoscopic magnetic sphincter augmentation versus double-dose proton pump inhibitors for management of moderate-to-severe regurgitation in GERD: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 89:14–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Warren HF, Reynolds JL, Lipham JC, Zehetner J, Bildzukewicz NA, Taiganides PA, Mickley J, Aye RW, Farivar AS, Louie BE (2016) Multi-institutional outcomes using magnetic sphincter augmentation versus Nissen fundoplication for chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease. Surg Endosc 30:3289–3296

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Reynolds JL, Zehetner J, Wu P, Shah S, Bildzukewicz N, Lipham JC (2015) Laparoscopic magnetic sphincter augmentation versus laparoscopic nissen fundoplication: a matched-pair analysis of 100 patients. J Am Coll Surg 221:123–128

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Riegler M, Schoppman SF, Bonavina L, Ashton D, Horbach T, Kemen M (2015) Magnetic sphincter augmentation and fundoplication for GERD in clinical practice: 1-year results of a multicenter, prospective observational study. Surg Endosc 29:1123–1129

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, Caro JJ, Lee KM, Minchin M, Orlewska E, Penna P, Barrios J-MR, Shau W-Y (2014) Budget impact analysis—principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. Value Health 17:5–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. El-Serag HB, Fitzgerald S, Richardson P (2009) The extent and determinants of prescribing and adherence with acid-reducing medications: a national claims database study. Am J Gastroenterol 104:2161

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kandulski A, Peitz U, Mönkemüller K, Neumann H, Weigt J, Malfertheiner P (2013) GERD assessment including pH metry predicts a high response rate to PPI standard therapy. BMC Gastroenterol 13:12

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Kleiman DA, Sporn MJ, Beninato T, Metz Y, Crawford C, Fahey TJ, Zarnegar R (2013) Early referral for 24-h esophageal pH monitoring may prevent unnecessary treatment with acid-reducing medications. Surg Endosc 27:1302–1309

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kushnir VM, Sayuk GS, Gyawali CP (2010) Abnormal GERD parameters on ambulatory pH monitoring predict therapeutic success in noncardiac chest pain. Am J Gastroenterol 105:1032

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lacy BE, Chehade R, Crowell MD (2011) A prospective study to compare a symptom-based reflux disease questionnaire to 48-h wireless pH monitoring for the identification of gastroesophageal reflux (revised 2-26-11). Am J Gastroenterol 106:1604

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Patel A, Sayuk GS, Gyawali CP (2015) Parameters on esophageal pH-impedance monitoring that predict outcomes of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 13:884–891

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ayazi S, Hagen JA, Chan LS, DeMeester SR, Lin MW, Ayazi A, Leers JM, Oezcelik A, Banki F, Lipham JC (2009) Obesity and gastroesophageal reflux: quantifying the association between body mass index, esophageal acid exposure, and lower esophageal sphincter status in a large series of patients with reflux symptoms. J Gastrointest Surg 13:1440–1447

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. de Miranda Gomes PR, Pereira de Rosa AR, Sakae T, Simić A, Gurski RR (2010) Correlation between pathological distal esophageal acid exposure and ineffective esophageal motility. Acta Chir Iugosl 57:37–43

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stein HJ, Barlow AP, Demeester TR, Hinder RA (1992) Complications of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Role of the lower esophageal sphincter, esophageal acid and acid/alkaline exposure, and duodenogastric reflux. Ann Surg 216:35

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Zaninotto G, DeMeester TR, Schwizer W, Johansson K-E, Cheng S-C (1988) The lower esophageal sphincter in health and disease. Am J Surg 155:104–111

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. US Census Bureau (2018) Population in the US

  28. Khan F, Maradey-Romero C, Ganocy S, Frazier R, Fass R (2016) Utilisation of surgical fundoplication for patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in the USA has declined rapidly between 2009 and 2013. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 43:1124–1131

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gosselin A, Luo R, Lohoues H, Toy E, Lewis B, Crawley J, Duh MS (2009) The impact of proton pump inhibitor compliance on health-care resource utilization and costs in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Value Health 12:34–39

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Skubleny D, Switzer NJ, Dang J, Gill RS, Shi X, de Gara C, Birch DW, Wong C, Hutter MM, Karmali S (2017) LINX® magnetic esophageal sphincter augmentation versus Nissen fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 31:3078–3084

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) (2015) Inpatient Charge Data FY 2015

  32. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) (2018) Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS)

  33. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) (2018) Physician Fee Schedule

  34. Karaca Z, Wong HS, Mutter RL (2012) Duration of patients’ visits to the hospital emergency department. BMC Emerg Med 12:15

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Stålhammar N-O, Spiegel BM, Löfman HG, Karlsson M, Wahlqvist P, Næsdal J, Nelson MT, Despiégel N (2012) Partial response to proton pump inhibitor therapy for GERD: observational study of patient characteristics, burden of disease, and costs in the USA. Pragmat Obs Res 3:57

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Ismail I, Wolff S, Gronfier A, Mutter D, Swantröm LL (2015) A cost evaluation methodology for surgical technologies. Surg Endosc 29:2423–2432

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Shippert RD (2005) A study of time-dependent operating room fees and how to save $100 000 by using time-saving products. Am J Cosmet Surg 22:25–34

    Google Scholar 

  38. Corral M, Ferko N, Hogan A, Hollmann SS, Gangoli G, Jamous N, Batiller J, Kocharian R (2016) A hospital cost analysis of a fibrin sealant patch in soft tissue and hepatic surgical bleeding. ClinicoEcon Outcomes Res 8:507

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Ernst FR, Chen E, Lipkin C, Tayama D, Amin AN (2014) Comparison of hospital length of stay, costs, and readmissions of alteplase versus catheter replacement among patients with occluded central venous catheters. J Hosp Med 9:490–496

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Zaraca F, Vaccarili M, Zaccagna G, Maniscalco P, Dolci G, Feil B, Perkmann R, Bertolaccini L, Crisci R (2017) Cost-effectiveness analysis of sealant impact in management of moderate intraoperative alveolar air leaks during video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. J Thorac Dis 9:5230

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Tomaszewski KJ, Ferko N, Hollmann SS, Eng SC, Richard HM, Rowe L, Sproule S (2017) Time and resources of peripherally inserted central catheter insertion procedures: a comparison between blind insertion/chest X-ray and a real time tip navigation and confirmation system. ClinicoEcon Outcomes Res 9:115

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Cheng H, Clymer JW, Qadeer RA, Ferko N, Sadeghirad B, Cameron CG, Amaral JF (2018) Procedure costs associated with the use of harmonic devices compared to conventional techniques in various surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ClinicoEcon Outcomes Res 10:399

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Cheng H, Soleas IM, Ferko NC, Cameron CG, Clymer JW, Amaral JF (2016) Hospital costs associated with thyroidectomy performed with a harmonic device compared to conventional techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Econ 19:750–758

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ganz RA, Edmundowicz SA, Taiganides PA, Lipham JC, Smith CD, DeVault KR, Horgan S, Jacobsen G, Luketich JD, Smith CC (2016) Long-term outcomes of patients receiving a magnetic sphincter augmentation device for gastroesophageal reflux. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 14:671–677

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Saino G, Bonavina L, Lipham JC, Dunn D, Ganz RA (2015) Magnetic sphincter augmentation for gastroesophageal reflux at 5 years: final results of a pilot study show long-term acid reduction and symptom improvement. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 25:787–792

    Google Scholar 

  46. Prakash D, Campbell B, Wajed S (2018) Introduction into the NHS of magnetic sphincter augmentation: an innovative surgical therapy for reflux–results and challenges. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 100:251–256

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Warren HF, Brown LM, Mihura M, Farivar AS, Aye RW, Louie BE (2018) Factors influencing the outcome of magnetic sphincter augmentation for chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease. Surg Endosc 32:405–412

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Bonavina L, Saino G, Bona D, Sironi A, Lazzari V (2013) One hundred consecutive patients treated with magnetic sphincter augmentation for gastroesophageal reflux disease: 6 years of clinical experience from a single center. J Am Coll Surg 217:577–585

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lipham JC, DeMeester TR, Ganz RA, Bonavina L, Saino G, Dunn DH, Fockens P, Bemelman W (2012) The LINX® reflux management system: confirmed safety and efficacy now at 4 years. Surg Endosc 26:2944–2949

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Mauskopf J, Earnshaw S (2016) A methodological review of US budget-impact models for new drugs. Pharmacoeconomics 34:1111–1131

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 676 N Saint Clair, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA

    John Pandolfino

  2. Department of Surgery, Keck Medical Center of USC, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    John Lipham

  3. Ethicon Inc. (Johnson & Johnson), Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Amarpreet Chawla

  4. Cornerstone Research Group Inc, Burlington, ON, Canada

    Nicole Ferko, Andrew Hogan & Rana A. Qadeer

Authors
  1. John Pandolfino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Lipham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amarpreet Chawla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicole Ferko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrew Hogan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rana A. Qadeer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Pandolfino.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Drs. John Pandolfino and John Lipham act as advisors to Ethicon Inc. and have received funding for surgeon teaching and consulting on product development. Nicole Ferko, Andrew Hogan, and Rana Qadeer are employees of Cornerstone Research Group Inc. and have received funding from Ethicon Inc. to conduct the study. Amarpreet Chawla is a paid full-time employee of Ethicon Inc., manufacturer of the LINX Reflux Management System. John Pandolfino, John Lipham, Amarpreet Chawla, Nicole Ferko, Andrew Hogan, Rana A. Qadeer have no other conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Table 4 Summary of questionnaire administered for clinician opinion on model inputs
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pandolfino, J., Lipham, J., Chawla, A. et al. A budget impact analysis of a magnetic sphincter augmentation device for the treatment of medication-refractory mechanical gastroesophageal reflux disease: a United States payer perspective. Surg Endosc 34, 1561–1572 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06916-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06916-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation