Display options
Cite
Young LE, Sacks NC, Cyr PL, et al. Comparison of claims data on hospitalization rates and repeat procedures in patients receiving a bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. SAGE Open Med. 2017;5:2050312117727999doi: 10.1177/2050312117727999.
Young, L. E., Sacks, N. C., Cyr, P. L., Sharma, A., & Dahdal, D. N. (2017). Comparison of claims data on hospitalization rates and repeat procedures in patients receiving a bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. SAGE open medicine, 52050312117727999. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312117727999
Young, Lisa E, et al. "Comparison of claims data on hospitalization rates and repeat procedures in patients receiving a bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy." SAGE open medicine vol. 5 (2017): 2050312117727999. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312117727999
Young LE, Sacks NC, Cyr PL, Sharma A, Dahdal DN. Comparison of claims data on hospitalization rates and repeat procedures in patients receiving a bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. SAGE Open Med. 2017 Aug 31;5:2050312117727999. doi: 10.1177/2050312117727999. eCollection 2017. PMID: 28894587; PMCID: PMC5582656.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

SAGE Open Med. 2017 Aug 31;5:2050312117727999. doi: 10.1177/2050312117727999. eCollection 2017.

Comparison of claims data on hospitalization rates and repeat procedures in patients receiving a bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy.

SAGE open medicine

Lisa E Young, Naomi C Sacks, Philip L Cyr, Abhishek Sharma, David N Dahdal

Affiliations

  1. Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc., Parsippany, NJ, USA.
  2. Precision Health Economics, Boston, MA, USA.
  3. School of Medicine, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA.
  4. University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA.
  5. Department of Global Health and Center for Global Health & Development, School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.

PMID: 28894587 PMCID: PMC5582656 DOI: 10.1177/2050312117727999

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate outcomes of colorectal screening using sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate compared with other prescription bowel-preparation agents. Primary endpoints were rates of procedure-associated hospitalizations, diagnosis at hospitalization, and rates of early repeat screenings.

METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified patients using the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan databases, which contain fully adjudicated, de-identified, medical- and prescription-drug claims, as well as demographic and enrollment information for individuals with commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare supplemental insurance coverage. Patients who had a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy over a 3-year period were identified using

RESULTS: A total of 566,628 procedures were identified in the MarketScan databases and included in the study. Sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate performed well in terms of safety outcomes, with no hospitalizations due to diagnosis of hyponatremia, dehydration, or other fluid disorders in the 10 days after procedure. Early repeat rates among sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate patients were comparable with rates observed for all other cleansing agents.

CONCLUSION: Outcomes of colorectal screening using sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate were not significantly different compared with other prescription bowel-preparation agents.

Keywords: Bowel preparation; Prepopik; colonoscopy preparation; colorectal cancer screening; health economics; health insurance; outcomes research; sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of conflicting interests: L.E.Y. and D.N.D. are employees of Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. N.C.S., P.L.C., and A.S. are employees of Precision Health Economics.

References

  1. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005 Mar;61(3):378-84 - PubMed
  2. Intern Med J. 2013 Feb;43(2):162-8 - PubMed
  3. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 May;109 (5):686-94 - PubMed
  4. Dig Dis Sci. 2015 Apr;60(4):971-8 - PubMed
  5. Ann Intern Med. 2009 Jan 6;150(1):1-8 - PubMed
  6. Health Econ. 2008 Aug;17(8):947-59 - PubMed
  7. Gastroenterology. 2016 Mar;150(3):758-768.e11 - PubMed
  8. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Mar;108(3):401-9 - PubMed
  9. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007 May;65(6):757-66 - PubMed
  10. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Mar;75(3):537-44 - PubMed
  11. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Jun;75(6):1197-203 - PubMed
  12. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83 - PubMed
  13. Gastroenterology. 2012 Sep;143(3):844-857 - PubMed
  14. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Mar 21;20(11):2746-50 - PubMed
  15. PLoS One. 2015 Sep 14;10(9):e0138000 - PubMed
  16. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Mar;95(10 ):e2739 - PubMed
  17. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Jul;78(1):132-41 - PubMed
  18. Lancet. 2005 Jan 22-28;365(9456):305-11 - PubMed
  19. Gastroenterology. 2014 Oct;147(4):903-24 - PubMed
  20. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009 Jan;29(1):15-28 - PubMed
  21. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Mar 30;107(6):djv048 - PubMed
  22. Dig Liver Dis. 2015 Aug;47(8):669-74 - PubMed
  23. Endoscopy. 2016 Mar;48(3):223-31 - PubMed
  24. Dig Dis Sci. 2015 Nov;60(11):3482-90 - PubMed
  25. Pediatrics. 2014 Aug;134(2):249-56 - PubMed
  26. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Jun;73(6):1207-14 - PubMed
  27. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Nov;109(11):1714-23; quiz 1724 - PubMed
  28. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 Jan-Feb;66(1):7-30 - PubMed
  29. N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 19;369(12):1095-105 - PubMed

Publication Types