Back

Gastric Alimetry testing and healthcare economic analysis in nausea and vomiting syndromes

Xu, W.; Williams, L.; Serebatnam, G.; Varghese, C.; Cedarwall, C.; Daker, C.; Keane, C.

2023-09-07 gastroenterology
10.1101/2023.09.07.23295185 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundChronic nausea and vomiting syndromes (CNVS), gastroparesis and functional dyspepsia (FD) are complex disorders. Body Surface Gastric Mapping (BSGM), a new test of gastric function, using Gastric Alimetry(Alimetry, New Zealand) may be useful for de-escalating healthcare utilisation. This study aimed to define healthcare costs and estimate health economic impacts of implementing this test in patients with chronic gastroduodenal symptoms. MethodsConsecutive patients at a tertiary referral centre evaluated with Gastric Alimetry were included. Frequency and cost data relating to medical investigations, hospital, and outpatient presentations were evaluated. Costs of healthcare utilisation were calculated, and the potential cost savings of implementing Gastric Alimetry within a diagnostic decision-tree model were estimated. ResultsOverall, 31 consecutive patients (mean age 36.1 years; 83.9% female; predominant symptoms: nausea [83.9%], pain [61.3%], vomiting [67.7%], bloating [35.5%]) completed Gastric Alimetry testing. Repeat gastroscopy and abdominal CT rates were 29% (8/28) and 85% (11/13) respectively. Gastric Alimetry testing identified spectral abnormalities in 45.2% of patients, and symptom profiling classified a further 29.1% of patients. Median annualised cost difference after test introduction was NZ$-12,032. Estimated reductions in investigation-related costs when incorporating Gastric Alimetry into the diagnostic workflow model were approximately NZ$1,500 per patient. ConclusionsHealthcare utilisation and confirmatory testing rates remain high in nausea and vomiting syndromes. This study presents real-world data, together with a decision tree analysis, showing Gastric Alimetry can streamline clinical care pathways, resulting in reduced healthcare utilisation and cost.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
American Journal of Gastroenterology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
38.5%
2
Neurogastroenterology & Motility
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.2%
50% of probability mass above
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 30%
5.0%
4
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
5
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 48%
2.2%
7
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
8
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
9
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
10
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
11
Gastroenterology
40 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
12
Genetics in Medicine
69 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
13
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
14
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
15
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
16
The Journal of Pain
26 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
17
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
18
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.7%
19
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
20
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
21
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%
22
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.5%