Excess Comorbidity Prevalence and Cost Associated with Functional Dyspepsia in an Employed Population
- 158 Downloads
Limited published data exist on the associated comorbid conditions with functional dyspepsia (FD).
This study aimed to assess the prevalence, services, and costs related to comorbid conditions associated with FD and the risk of having FD for each comorbid condition.
A retrospective database analysis was undertaken using payroll data and adjudicated claims from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2004 among >300,000 employees. Employees with FD were compared to propensity-score-matched employees without FD (controls). Outcome measures included the prevalence, costs, and utilization of health services for comorbid conditions as defined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the odds ratios of having FD from a multivariate model.
FD employees (N = 1,669) and a 50:1 matched control cohort (N = 83,450) were compared. Compared to matched controls, FD employees were more likely to have all major diagnostic categories. Moreover, 199/261 of the AHRQ’s specific categories were more common in the FD cohort. Annual medical costs for the FD cohort were greater than for controls in 155/261 (59%) specific categories and significantly greater (P ≤ 0.05) in 76 categories (29%). Similarly, services were greater for 179/261 (69%) specific categories and significantly greater (P ≤ 0.05) in 110 categories (42%). In a multivariate model, esophageal disorders, gastritis and duodenitis, and abdominal pain were the most associated with having FD (odds ratios 3.8, 3.7, and 3.6, respectively). Only hypertension complications and disorders of the teeth and jaw were significantly negatively associated with FD.
There is unexplained excess comorbidity associated with FD which may be a major determining factor for excess healthcare services and costs.
KeywordsFunctional dyspepsia Comorbidities Costs Prevalence
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Functional gastrointestinal disorders
Irritable bowel syndrome
Human Capital Management Services
International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision
Major diagnostic categories
Consumer price indices
The authors would also like to acknowledge Stephen George, MS, RPh, formerly Vice President, Conexus Health, and Arthur K. Melkonian, MD, formerly of the HCMS Group, now of Promtest LLC, Yerevan, Armenia, for their assistance in the design and conduct of the original research. Dr. Melknonian also assisted in reviewing this manuscript. The original research support for this study was provided by Conexus Health, Tampa, FL. All subsequent analyses were not funded. The study sponsor provided funding and guidance on protocol development and interpretation of the data.
Conflict of interest
The corresponding author had full access to all of the data and takes full responsibility for the veracity of the data and statistical analysis.
The authors disclose the following: Richard Brook, Nathan Kleinman, and James Smeeding received consulting fees from Conexus Health associated with this research in 2004 and 2005. The remaining authors disclose no conflicts.
- 19.Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Palmer L. Clinical classifications software, 2004. February 6, 2004. US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Available at http://www.ahrq.gov/data/hcup/css.htm#download. Accessed November 4, 2004. Also available through HCUP Methods Series: Report #2004-02 Comorbidity Software Documentation, available at http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/methods.jsp. Accessed: November 4, 2004.
- 20.Consumer Price Index: All Urban Consumers (Current Series). Bureau of labor statistics, United States Department of Labor, August 2009. Available at http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=cu, accessed 9/9/09.
- 21.Stanghellini V, Frisoni C. Editorial: reflux, dyspepsia, and Rome III (or Rome IV?). Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:2632–2634.Google Scholar
- 23.Ford AC, Marwaha A, Lim A, Moayyedi P. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome in individuals with dyspepsia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;8:401–409. 2009/7/23.Google Scholar