The Economic Burden of Eosinophilic Gastritis and Eosinophilic Enteritis in the United States.

Abstract

IntroductionEosinophilic gastritis and eosinophilic enteritis (EoG/EoN) are associated with a substantial clinical burden. However, limited information is available regarding the economic burden of EoG/EoN. This study was conducted to compare healthcare resource use (HRU) and costs among patients with EoG/EoN versus without EoG/EoN in the USA.MethodsAdministrative claims data from the IBM MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters (CCAE) and Medicare Supplemental and Coordination of Benefits Databases (2009–2019) was used to identify two cohorts of patients. Patients without EoG/EoN were matched 3:1 to patients with EoG/EoN on sex, year of birth, and healthcare plan type. Study measures included demographic characteristics, select comorbidities, all-cause HRU, and costs. Comparisons were made over a 1-year period following EoG/EoN diagnosis for patients with EoG/EoN and an eligible date for patients without EoG/EoN.ResultsA total of 2219 patients with EoG/EoN and 6657 patients without EoG/EoN were analyzed. Significantly higher proportions of patients with EoG/EoN versus without EoG/EoN had comorbid conditions. Rates of all-cause HRU were significantly higher among patients with EoG/EoN versus patients without EoG/EoN (adjusted rate ratio [95% confidence interval]: inpatient visits, 6.26 [5.26, 7.46]; outpatient visits, 1.17 [1.16, 1.19]; emergency department visits, 2.11 [1.98, 2.25]; all p < 0.001). Patients with EoG/EoN incurred significantly higher costs versus patients without EoG/EoN (adjusted mean cost difference $31,180; p < 0.001). Cost differences were largely due to outpatient (adjusted mean cost difference $14,018; p < 0.001) and inpatient (adjusted mean cost difference $11,224; p < 0.001) costs.ConclusionThe economic burden associated with EoG/EoN is substantial, with patients with EoG/EoN having a higher rate of HRU and incurring $31,180 more than patients without EoG/EoN on average. Most of the cost difference was attributable to outpatient and inpatient costs. Cost-saving strategies to lower the burden of illness in this patient population are needed.