Home Biofeedback for the Treatment of Dyssynergic Defecation: Does It Improve Quality of Life and Is It Cost-Effective?

Satish Sanku Chander Rao, Jorge T. Go, Jessica Valestin, John Schneider

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Biofeedback therapy, whether administered at home or in office settings, is effective for dyssynergic defecation (DD). Whether home biofeedback improves quality of life (QOL) and is cost-effective when compared with office biofeedback is unknown.METHODS:QOL was assessed in 8 domains (SF-36) at baseline and after treatment (3 months), alongside economic evaluation during a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing home and office biofeedback in patients with DD (Rome III). Costs related to both biofeedback programs were estimated from the hospital financial records, study questionnaires, and electronic medical records. A conversion algorithm (Brazier) was used to calculate the patient's quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from SF-36 responses. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as incremental costs per QALY between the treatment arms.RESULTS:One hundred patients (96 female patients, 50 in each treatment arm) with DD participated. Six of the 8 QOL domains improved (P < 0.05) in office biofeedback, whereas 4 of the 8 domains improved (P < 0.05) in home biofeedback; home biofeedback was noninferior to office biofeedback. The median cost per patient was significantly lower (P < 0.01) for home biofeedback ($1,112.39; interquartile range (IQR), $826-$1,430) than for office biofeedback ($1,943; IQR, $1,622-$2,369), resulting in a cost difference of $830.11 The median QALY gained during the trial was 0.03 for office biofeedback and 0.07 for home biofeedback (P = NS). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $20,752.75 in favor of home biofeedback.Discussion:Biofeedback therapy significantly improves QOL in patients with DD regardless of home or office setting. Home biofeedback is a cost-effective treatment option for DD compared with office biofeedback, and it offers the potential of treating many more patients in the community.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)938-944
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican Journal of Gastroenterology
Volume114
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2019

Fingerprint

Defecation
Quality of Life
Costs and Cost Analysis
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Therapeutics
Hospital Records
Electronic Health Records
Health Care Costs
Randomized Controlled Trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hepatology
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Home Biofeedback for the Treatment of Dyssynergic Defecation : Does It Improve Quality of Life and Is It Cost-Effective? / Rao, Satish Sanku Chander; Go, Jorge T.; Valestin, Jessica; Schneider, John.

In: American Journal of Gastroenterology, Vol. 114, No. 6, 01.06.2019, p. 938-944.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8d3952f3a7864b19910add3f4837b84d,
title = "Home Biofeedback for the Treatment of Dyssynergic Defecation: Does It Improve Quality of Life and Is It Cost-Effective?",
abstract = "Biofeedback therapy, whether administered at home or in office settings, is effective for dyssynergic defecation (DD). Whether home biofeedback improves quality of life (QOL) and is cost-effective when compared with office biofeedback is unknown.METHODS:QOL was assessed in 8 domains (SF-36) at baseline and after treatment (3 months), alongside economic evaluation during a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing home and office biofeedback in patients with DD (Rome III). Costs related to both biofeedback programs were estimated from the hospital financial records, study questionnaires, and electronic medical records. A conversion algorithm (Brazier) was used to calculate the patient's quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from SF-36 responses. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as incremental costs per QALY between the treatment arms.RESULTS:One hundred patients (96 female patients, 50 in each treatment arm) with DD participated. Six of the 8 QOL domains improved (P < 0.05) in office biofeedback, whereas 4 of the 8 domains improved (P < 0.05) in home biofeedback; home biofeedback was noninferior to office biofeedback. The median cost per patient was significantly lower (P < 0.01) for home biofeedback ($1,112.39; interquartile range (IQR), $826-$1,430) than for office biofeedback ($1,943; IQR, $1,622-$2,369), resulting in a cost difference of $830.11 The median QALY gained during the trial was 0.03 for office biofeedback and 0.07 for home biofeedback (P = NS). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $20,752.75 in favor of home biofeedback.Discussion:Biofeedback therapy significantly improves QOL in patients with DD regardless of home or office setting. Home biofeedback is a cost-effective treatment option for DD compared with office biofeedback, and it offers the potential of treating many more patients in the community.",
author = "Rao, {Satish Sanku Chander} and Go, {Jorge T.} and Jessica Valestin and John Schneider",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.14309/ajg.0000000000000278",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "114",
pages = "938--944",
journal = "American Journal of Gastroenterology",
issn = "0002-9270",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Home Biofeedback for the Treatment of Dyssynergic Defecation

T2 - Does It Improve Quality of Life and Is It Cost-Effective?

AU - Rao, Satish Sanku Chander

AU - Go, Jorge T.

AU - Valestin, Jessica

AU - Schneider, John

PY - 2019/6/1

Y1 - 2019/6/1

N2 - Biofeedback therapy, whether administered at home or in office settings, is effective for dyssynergic defecation (DD). Whether home biofeedback improves quality of life (QOL) and is cost-effective when compared with office biofeedback is unknown.METHODS:QOL was assessed in 8 domains (SF-36) at baseline and after treatment (3 months), alongside economic evaluation during a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing home and office biofeedback in patients with DD (Rome III). Costs related to both biofeedback programs were estimated from the hospital financial records, study questionnaires, and electronic medical records. A conversion algorithm (Brazier) was used to calculate the patient's quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from SF-36 responses. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as incremental costs per QALY between the treatment arms.RESULTS:One hundred patients (96 female patients, 50 in each treatment arm) with DD participated. Six of the 8 QOL domains improved (P < 0.05) in office biofeedback, whereas 4 of the 8 domains improved (P < 0.05) in home biofeedback; home biofeedback was noninferior to office biofeedback. The median cost per patient was significantly lower (P < 0.01) for home biofeedback ($1,112.39; interquartile range (IQR), $826-$1,430) than for office biofeedback ($1,943; IQR, $1,622-$2,369), resulting in a cost difference of $830.11 The median QALY gained during the trial was 0.03 for office biofeedback and 0.07 for home biofeedback (P = NS). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $20,752.75 in favor of home biofeedback.Discussion:Biofeedback therapy significantly improves QOL in patients with DD regardless of home or office setting. Home biofeedback is a cost-effective treatment option for DD compared with office biofeedback, and it offers the potential of treating many more patients in the community.

AB - Biofeedback therapy, whether administered at home or in office settings, is effective for dyssynergic defecation (DD). Whether home biofeedback improves quality of life (QOL) and is cost-effective when compared with office biofeedback is unknown.METHODS:QOL was assessed in 8 domains (SF-36) at baseline and after treatment (3 months), alongside economic evaluation during a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing home and office biofeedback in patients with DD (Rome III). Costs related to both biofeedback programs were estimated from the hospital financial records, study questionnaires, and electronic medical records. A conversion algorithm (Brazier) was used to calculate the patient's quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from SF-36 responses. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as incremental costs per QALY between the treatment arms.RESULTS:One hundred patients (96 female patients, 50 in each treatment arm) with DD participated. Six of the 8 QOL domains improved (P < 0.05) in office biofeedback, whereas 4 of the 8 domains improved (P < 0.05) in home biofeedback; home biofeedback was noninferior to office biofeedback. The median cost per patient was significantly lower (P < 0.01) for home biofeedback ($1,112.39; interquartile range (IQR), $826-$1,430) than for office biofeedback ($1,943; IQR, $1,622-$2,369), resulting in a cost difference of $830.11 The median QALY gained during the trial was 0.03 for office biofeedback and 0.07 for home biofeedback (P = NS). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $20,752.75 in favor of home biofeedback.Discussion:Biofeedback therapy significantly improves QOL in patients with DD regardless of home or office setting. Home biofeedback is a cost-effective treatment option for DD compared with office biofeedback, and it offers the potential of treating many more patients in the community.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067461150&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85067461150&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000278

DO - 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000278

M3 - Article

C2 - 31170114

AN - SCOPUS:85067461150

VL - 114

SP - 938

EP - 944

JO - American Journal of Gastroenterology

JF - American Journal of Gastroenterology

SN - 0002-9270

IS - 6

ER -