Health care utilization and costs following amplified versus non-amplified molecular probe testing for symptomatic patients with suspected vulvovaginitis: a US commercial payer population
Authors Ackerman SJ, Knight T, Wahl PM, Cartwright CP
Received 25 October 2018
Accepted for publication 6 January 2019
Published 20 February 2019 Volume 2019:11 Pages 179—189
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Professor Samer Hamidi
Stacey J Ackerman,1 Tyler Knight,2 Peter M Wahl,2 Charles P Cartwright3
1Covance Market Access Services Inc., San Diego, CA, USA; 2Covance Market Access Services Inc., Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 3Center for Esoteric Testing, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Burlington, NC, USA
Background: Vulvovaginitis (VV) is a common reason women seek medical attention in the USA. Both the non-specific clinical presentation and risk of preterm labor or delivery necessitate accurate identification of the causative agents to guide appropriate therapy. The diagnostic accuracy of amplified molecular probe testing (AMP) has been shown to exceed that of non-amplified molecular probe (NAMP) by 20%–25%.
Objective: To evaluate the impact of diagnosis with AMP testing on health care utilization, direct costs, and health outcomes, compared with NAMP, for symptomatic patients with suspected VV from a commercial payer perspective.
Methods: Symptomatic women (aged 18–64 years) who underwent VV testing with AMP or NAMP from January 1, 2012–December 31, 2016 were identified using the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Database; those with continuous medical and pharmacy benefit enrollment 6 months pre/post AMP or NAMP testing were included. Patients were propensity score (PS) matched and 6-month all-cause health care resource utilization, all-cause direct costs (2017 USD), risk of all-cause hospitalization, and risk of preterm labor or delivery were compared between cohorts.
Results: After PS match (N=46,810 per group, mean age 34.2 years), AMP had significantly (all P<0.0001) fewer mean hospital outpatient visits (AMP 0.9 vs NAMP 1.0), primary care physician office visits (AMP 1.1 vs NAMP 1.2), and prescription medications (AMP 7.3 vs NAMP 8.0), and a 21% reduction in risk of hospitalization (risk ratio [RR]=0.79, 95% CI= 0.75–0.83, P<0.0001). Total medical expenditures per patient were lower for AMP than NAMP (mean AMP $3,287 vs NAMP $3,555, P<0.0001). Among pregnant women (N=2,175 per group), AMP had a 12% reduction in risk of preterm labor or delivery (RR =0.88, 95% CI=0.77–0.99, P=0.041).
Conclusion: This real-world study offers evidence on the clinical utility for symptomatic patients with suspected VV diagnosed with AMP compared to NAMP – demonstrating an opportunity to improve the patient journey while delivering value-based care.
Keywords: vulvovaginitis, preterm labor, preterm delivery, amplified molecular probe testing, propensity-score matching, health care utilization, costs, NuSwab, clinical utility
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]