Costs of treatment change following first-line somatostatin analog monotherapy among patients with neuroendocrine tumors.

BACKGROUND: This study describes treatment characteristics and healthcare costs prior to and following treatment change from somatostatin analog (SSA) monotherapy among a privately-insured NET patient population in the US. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed NET and treated with SSA monotherapy were retrospectively identified in IBM MarketScan claims between 1/1/2014 and 3/31/2019. NET treatment change was captured ≥30 days after the SSA start date (earliest new treatment = index date). Healthcare costs (reimbursed amount in 2019 dollars) were reported for 1, 3, and 6 months pre- and post-index intervals. RESULTS: A total of 305 patients were identified (mean age: 58 years; female: 52%; metastatic disease: 49%). Most patients started on octreotide (81%) vs. lanreotide (19%). Common treatment changes included alternate SSA (38%), targeted therapy (30%), or chemotherapy (23%). Total costs increased on average by $13,272 between the month preceding and following treatment change (p < .001), with the highest increase among patients changing to targeted therapy ($19,677, p < .001) vs. an alternate SSA ($10,240, p < .001) or chemotherapy ($4,057, p = .155). The trajectory in mean cost difference using a 1, 3, and 6-month time period followed an increasing trend for patients who changed to targeted therapy (Δ$19,677, Δ$34,856, Δ$58,387) but was flat for patients who changed to the alternate SSA (Δ$10,240, Δ$10,026, Δ$11,727). CONCLUSIONS: Higher total healthcare costs were observed following treatment change from first-line SSA. Switching to the alternate SSA was associated with a fixed, one-time cost; whereas, switching to targeted therapy was associated with both an initial switching cost and a persistent monthly increase.

Cost-Utility of Acromegaly Pharmacological Treatments in a French Context.

Objective: Efficacy of pharmacological treatments for acromegaly has been assessed in many clinical or real-world studies but no study was interested in economics evaluation of these treatments in France. Therefore, the objective of this study was to estimate the cost-utility of second-line pharmacological treatments in acromegaly patients. Methods: A Markov model was developed to follow a cohort of 1,000 patients for a lifetime horizon. First-generation somatostatin analogues (FGSA), pegvisomant, pasireotide and pegvisomant combined with FGSA (off label) were compared. Efficacy was defined as the normalization of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) concentration and was obtained from pivotal trials and adjusted by a network meta-analysis. Costs data were obtained from French databases and literature. Utilities from the literature were used to estimate quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Results: The incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) of treatments compared to FGSA were estimated to be 562,463 € per QALY gained for pasireotide, 171,332 € per QALY gained for pegvisomant, and 186,242 € per QALY gained for pegvisomant + FGSA. Pasireotide seems to be the least cost-efficient treatment. Sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the results. Conclusion: FGSA, pegvisomant and pegvisomant + FGSA were on the cost-effective frontier, therefore, depending on the willingness-to-pay for an additional QALY, they are the most cost-effective treatments. This medico-economic analysis highlighted the consistency of the efficiency results with the efficacy results assessed in the pivotal trials. However, most recent treatment guidelines recommend an individualized treatment strategy based on the patient and disease profile.

Pharmacological Acromegaly Treatment: Cost-Utility and Value of Information Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a cost-utility analysis comparing drug strategies involving octreotide, lanreotide, pasireotide, and pegvisomant for the treatment of patients with acromegaly who have failed surgery, from a Brazilian public payer perspective. METHODS: A probabilistic cohort Markov model was developed. One-year cycles were employed. The patients started at 45 years of age and were followed lifelong. Costs, efficacy, and quality of life parameters were retrieved from the literature. A discount rate (5%) was applied to both costs and efficacy. The results were reported as costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated when applicable. Scenario analyses considered alternative dosages, discount rate, tax exemption, and continued use of treatment despite lack of response. Value of information (VOI) analysis was conducted to explore uncertainty and to estimate the costs to be spent in future research. RESULTS: Only lanreotide showed an ICER reasonable for having its use considered in clinical practice (R$ 112,138/US$ 28,389 per QALY compared to no treatment). Scenario analyses corroborated the base-case result. VOI analysis showed that much uncertainty surrounds the parameters, and future clinical research should cost less than R$ 43,230,000/US$ 10,944,304 per year. VOI also showed that almost all uncertainty that precludes an optimal strategy choice involves quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: With current information, the only strategy that can be considered cost-effective in Brazil is lanreotide treatment. No second-line treatment is recommended. Significant uncertainty of parameters impairs optimal decision-making, and this conclusion can be generalized to other countries. Future research should focus on acquiring utility data.

Cost-Effectiveness and Efficacy of a Novel Combination Regimen in Acromegaly: A Prospective, Randomized Trial.

CONTEXT: Combination therapy with somatostatin receptor ligand (SRL) plus pegvisomant for patients with acromegaly is recommended after a maximizing dose on monotherapy. Lower-dose combination regimens are not well studied. OBJECTIVE: To compare cost-effectiveness and efficacy of 3 lower-dose combination regimens in controlled and uncontrolled acromegaly. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel arm study at a tertiary referral pituitary center. PATIENTS: Adults with acromegaly regardless of response to prior SRL and biochemical control status at baseline, stratified by an SRL dose required for insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I normalization during any 3-month period within 12 months preceding enrollment. INTERVENTION: Combination therapy for 24 to 32 weeks on arm A, high-dose SRL (lanreotide 120 mg/octreotide long-acting release [LAR] 30 mg) plus weekly pegvisomant (40-160 mg/week); arm B, low-dose SRL (lanreotide 60 mg/octreotide LAR 10 mg) plus weekly pegvisomant; or arm C, low-dose SRL plus daily pegvisomant (15-60 mg/day). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Monthly treatment cost in each arm in participants completing ≥ 24 weeks of therapy. RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled and 52 were evaluable. Fifty of 52 (96%) demonstrated IGF-I control regardless of prior SRL responsiveness (arm A, 14/15 [93.3%]; arm B, 22/23 [95.7%]; arm C, 14/14 [100%]). Arm B was least costly (mean, $9837 ±â€…1375 per month), arm C was most expensive (mean, $22543 ±â€…11158 per month), and arm A had an intermediate cost (mean, $14261 ±â€…1645 per month). Approximately 30% of patients required pegvisomant dose uptitration. Rates of adverse events were all < 10%. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose SRL plus weekly pegvisomant represents a novel dosing option for achieving cost-effective, optimal biochemical control in patients with uncontrolled acromegaly requiring combination therapy.

Everolimus, lutetium-177 DOTATATE and sunitinib for advanced, unresectable or metastatic neuroendocrine tumours with disease progression: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are a group of heterogeneous cancers that develop in cells in the diffuse neuroendocrine system. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the clinical effectiveness of three interventions [everolimus (Afinitor®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland), lutetium-177 DOTATATE (177Lu-DOTATATE) (Lutathera®; Imaging Equipment Ltd, Radstock, UK) and sunitinib (Sutent®; Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA)] for treating unresectable or metastatic NETs with disease progression and establish the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched from inception to May 2016: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily, Epub Ahead of Print, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science. REVIEW METHODS: We systematically reviewed the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness literature on everolimus, 177Lu-DOTATATE and sunitinib for treating advanced, unresectable or metastatic progressive NETs. The following NET locations were considered separately: pancreas, gastrointestinal (GI) tract and lung, and GI tract (midgut only). We wrote a survival partition cohort-based economic evaluation in Microsoft Excel® 2013 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) from the UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. This comprised three health states: (1) progression-free survival (PFS), (2) progressed disease and (3) death. RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RADIANT-3 [RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Third Trial; pancreatic NETs (pNETs): everolimus vs. best supportive care (BSC)], A6181111 (pNETs: sunitinib vs. BSC) and RADIANT-4 (RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Fourth Trial; GI and lung NETs: everolimus vs. BSC), met the inclusion criteria for the clinical effectiveness systematic review. The risk of bias was low. Although the NETTER-1 (Neuroendocrine Tumors Therapy) RCT, of 177Lu-DOTATATE plus 30 mg of octreotide (Sandostatin®, Novartis) compared with 60 mg of octreotide, was excluded from the review, we nonetheless present the results of this trial, as it informs our estimate of the cost-effectiveness of 177Lu-DOTATATE. The pNETs trials consistently found that the interventions improved PFS and overall survival (OS) compared with BSC. Our indirect comparison found no significant difference in PFS between everolimus and sunitinib. Estimates of OS gain were confounded because of high rates of treatment switching. After adjustment, our indirect comparison suggested a lower, but non-significant, hazard of death for sunitinib compared with everolimus. In GI and lung NETs, everolimus significantly improved PFS compared with BSC and showed a non-significant trend towards improved OS compared with BSC. Adverse events were more commonly reported following treatment with targeted interventions than after treatment with BSC. In the base case for pNETs, assuming list prices, we estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for everolimus compared with BSC of £45,493 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and for sunitinib compared with BSC of £20,717 per QALY. These ICERs increased substantially without the adjustment for treatment switching. For GI and lung NETs, we estimated an ICER for everolimus compared with BSC of £44,557 per QALY. For GI (midgut) NETs, the ICERs were £199,233 per QALY for everolimus compared with BSC and £62,158 per QALY for a scenario analysis comparing 177Lu-DOTATATE with BSC. We judge that no treatment meets the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) end-of-life criteria, although we cannot rule out that sunitinib in the A6181111 trial does. LIMITATIONS: A RCT with included comparators was not identified for 177Lu-DOTATATE. The indirect treatment comparison that our economic analysis was based on was of a simple Bucher type, unadjusted for any differences in the baseline characteristics across the two trials. CONCLUSIONS: Given NICE's current stated range of £20,000-30,000 per QALY for the cost-effectiveness threshold, based on list prices, only sunitinib might be considered good value for money in England and Wales. FUTURE WORK: Further analysis of individual patient data from RADIANT-3 would allow assessment of the robustness of our findings. The data were not made available to us by the company sponsoring the trial. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041303. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost-effectiveness comparison of prophylactic octreotide and pasireotide for prevention of fistula after pancreatic surgery.

PURPOSE: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a major determinant of pancreatic surgery outcome, and prevention of POPF is a relevant clinical challenge. The aim of the present study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of octreotide and pasireotide for POPF prophylaxis. METHODS: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis and a retrospective patient cohort provided the data. Cost-effectiveness was calculated by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and by decision tree modelling of hospital stay duration. RESULTS: Six randomised trials on octreotide (1255 patients) and one trial on pasireotide (300 patients) were included. The median POPF incidence without prophylaxis was 19.6 %. The relative risks for POPF after octreotide or pasireotide prophylaxis were 0.54 or 0.45. Octreotide prophylaxis (21 × 0.1 mg) costs were 249.69 Euro, compared with 728.84 Euro for pasireotide (14 × 0.9 mg) resulting in an ICER of 266.19 Euro for an additional 1.8 % risk reduction with pasireotide. Decision tree modelling revealed no significant reduction of median hospital stay duration if pasireotide was used instead of octreotide. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic octreotide is almost as effective as pasireotide but incurs significantly fewer drug costs per case. However, the data quality is limited, because the effect of octreotide on clinically relevant POPF is unclear. Together with the lack of multicentric data on pasireotide and its effectiveness, a current off-label use of pasireotide does not appear to be justified.

Comparison of 2 days versus 5 days of octreotide infusion along with endoscopic therapy in preventing early rebleed from esophageal varices: a randomized clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Variceal bleeding is a medical emergency with 20% mortality at 6 weeks. The role of vasoactive agents in achieving hemostasis and preventing rebleeding has been well documented. The optimal duration of these agents has not been well established. There are no previous studies yielding the exact duration of octreotide to be administered to prevent rebleed and mortality from esophageal varices. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of combination therapy (octreotide and endoscopy), the exact duration of octreotide infusion, its cost-effectiveness, and the outcome in terms of rebleed and mortality. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a randomized clinical trial including 124 patients with acute variceal bleeding who underwent endoscopic therapy; they were assigned randomly to 2 days (n=62) and 5 days (n=58) of continuous octreotide infusion (50 µg/kg). Early rebleeding (within 42 days of index bleed according to Baveno IV consensus guidelines), transfusion requirement, and mortality were assessed. RESULTS: The study had predominantly male patients, average age 47 years. Among the patients in the 2-day group, 3 (4.8%) showed early rebleed versus 5 (8.6%) in the 5-day group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). Among the patients in the 2-day group, one patient died after 3 weeks and all the patients in the 5-day group survived till 6 weeks on follow-up, and the survival rates were comparable (P>0.05). The treatment in the 5-day group was 2.5 times costlier than that for the 2-day group as shown by a cost-wise analysis. CONCLUSION: Two days of octreotide infusion following endoscopic therapy is sufficient and as efficacious as 5 days of infusion in preventing early rebleed, with reasonably better cost-effectiveness.

Octreotide long-active release in the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding due to vascular malformations: Cost-effectiveness study.

INTRODUCTION: Gastrointestinal hemorrhage due to vascular malformations has a negative impact on patients´ quality of life and consumes an important quantity of resources. OBJECTIVE: Analyze the cost-effectiveness of long-active releasing octreotide (OCT-LAR) in the treatment of gastrointestinal haemorrhage secondary to vascular malformations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective study, including 19 pacients that were treated with mensual injections of OCTLAR between 2008-2013. The number of blood transfusions, hemoglobin levels, hospital admissions and possible side effects during the year before treatment and the year after the start of the treatment were assessed, and cost-effectiveness was analyzed. RESULTS: After the beginning of the treatment with OCTLAR, complete response was observed in 7 patients (36.8 %), partial response in 7 patients (36.8 %) and 5 patients (26.3 %) continued to require admissions, blood transfusions and/or endoscopic treatment. We observed significant reduction in the length of admission per year (in days) before and after the start of the treatment (22.79 versus 2.01 days, p < 0.0001) as well as in the number of blood transfusions administered (11.19 versus 2.55 blood transfusions per year, p = 0.002). The mean haemoglobin levels increased from 6.9 g/dl to 10.62 g/dl (p < 0.0001). We observed reduction of costs of 61.5 % between the two periods (from 36,072.35 € to 13,867.57 € per patient and year, p = 0.01). No side effects related to treatment were described. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, OCT-LAR seems to be a costefficient and safe pharmacological treatment of gastrointestinal haemorrhage secondary to vascular malformations, mainly in patients in whom endoscopic or surgical treatment is contraindicated.

[Antidotes--often expensive and not always available]. / Antidootit--usein kalliita eivätkä aina saatavilla.

While there is seldom need for most anti-poisoning agents and antidotes, they should be quickly available, when needed. Local worst-case scenarios, regional staggering of the treatment, and distances must be taken into account at the health care unit level. Hospitals are fairly well equipped with the recommended antidotes. Replenishment of the stocks is complicated by continual disruptions in supply of antidotes. New antidotes in the updated recommendation include calcium folinate (leucovorin) for methanol poisoning and octreotide for the treatment of hypoglycemia caused by intoxications resulting from antidiabetics of the sulfonyl urea group.

Cost comparison of 111In-DTPA-octreotide scintigraphy and 68Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT for staging enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.

PURPOSE: Although somatostatin receptor positron emission tomography (PET)/CT is gaining increasing popularity and has shown its diagnostic superiority in several studies, (111)In-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA)-octreotide is still the current standard for diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumours (NET). The aim of this study was to compare the costs for the two diagnostic tests and the respective consequential costs. METHODS: From January 2009 to July 2009, 51 consecutive patients with enteropancreatic NET who underwent contrast-enhanced (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT (n = 29) or (111)In-DTPA-octreotide (mean 3 whole-body scans plus 1.6 low-dose single photon emission computed tomography/CT; n = 22) were included. For cost analysis, direct costs (equipment) and variable costs (material, labour) per examination were calculated. Additionally required CT and/or MRI examinations within the staging process were assessed as consequential costs. An additional deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: A (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT examination yielded total costs (equipment, personnel and material costs) of 548 euro. On the other hand, an (111)In-DTPA-octreotide examination resulted in 827 euro total costs. Costs for equipment and material had a share of 460 euro/720 euro for (68)Ga-DOTATOC/(111)In-DTPA-octreotide and labour costs of 89 euro/106 euro. With (68)Ga-DOTATOC additional MRI had to be performed in 7% of the patients resulting in a mean of 20 euro for supplementary imaging per patient; 82% of patients with (111)In-DTPA-octreotide needed additional MRI and/or CT resulting in mean additional costs of 161 euro per patient. CONCLUSION: (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT was considerably cheaper than (111)In-DTPA-octreotide with respect to both material and personnel costs. Furthermore, by using (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT considerably fewer additional examinations were needed reducing the consequential costs significantly.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of somatostatin analogues in the treatment of acromegaly in Brazil / Análise de custo-efetividade de análogos da somatostatina no tratamento de acromegalia no Brasil

This study aims to compare economic and patient impacts of the treatment of acromegaly with two different somatostatin analogues (octreotide LAR and lanreotide SR) in Brazil. A cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out under the Brazilian Public Health Care System (SUS) perspective. A decision analytical model was developed based on the Brazilian Public Health Care System Clinical Guideline for Acromegaly. A hypothetical cohort of 276 patients was followed for two years. Data were extracted from literature and administrative databases. Based on the analytical model, treatment with octreotide LAR would avoid 12 and 17 cases of GH and IGF-I elevated serum levels, respectively. Octreotide LAR was a cost-saving strategy, with net savings of R$10,448,324 (US$4,465,096) to SUS. Annual net savings per patient were R$ 18,928 (US$8,089). Treatment of acromegaly with octreotide LAR is a dominant strategy when compared to the treatment with lanreotide SR in Brazil. Sensitivity analysis did not alter the cost-saving status.

O objetivo deste estudo é comparar o impacto econômico e o impacto nos pacientes com acromegalia do tratamento com dois diferentes análogos de somatostatina (octreotida LAR e lanreotide SR) no Brasil. Um estudo de custoefetividade foi realizado a partir da perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). Foi desenvolvido um modelo analítico de decisão baseado no Protocolo Clínico e Diretrizes Terapêuticas de Acromegalia do SUS. Uma coorte hipotética de 276 pacientes foi seguida por dois anos. Dados foram obtidos da literatura e bases de dados oficiais do SUS. Baseado no modelo analítico, o tratamento com octreotida LAR evitaria 12 e 17 casos com níveis elevados de GH e IGF-I, respectivamente. Octreotida LAR foi uma estratégia econômica, gerando economia de R$10.448.324 (US$4.465.096) para o SUS. A economia anual por paciente foi de R$18.928 (US$8.089). O tratamento de acromegalia com octreotida LAR é estratégia dominante quando comparado com o tratamento com lanreotida SR no Brasil. A análise de sensibilidade não alterou seu status de econômica.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of somatostatin analogues in the treatment of acromegaly in Brazil.

This study aims to compare economic and patient impacts of the treatment of acromegaly with two different somatostatin analogues (octreotide LAR and lanreotide SR) in Brazil. A cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out under the Brazilian Public Health Care System (SUS) perspective. A decision analytical model was developed based on the Brazilian Public Health Care System Clinical Guideline for Acromegaly. A hypothetical cohort of 276 patients was followed for two years. Data were extracted from literature and administrative databases. Based on the analytical model, treatment with octreotide LAR would avoid 12 and 17 cases of GH and IGF-I elevated serum levels, respectively. Octreotide LAR was a cost-saving strategy, with net savings of R$10,448,324 (US$4,465,096) to SUS. Annual net savings per patient were R$ 18,928 (US$8,089). Treatment of acromegaly with octreotide LAR is a dominant strategy when compared to the treatment with lanreotide SR in Brazil. Sensitivity analysis did not alter the cost-saving status.

An economic evaluation of vasoactive agents used in the United Kingdom for acute bleeding oesophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct an economic evaluation of terlipressin, octreotide and placebo in the treatment of bleeding oesophageal varices (BOV) where endotherapy could be used concomitantly. METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was created with transition states: bleeding, no bleeding, no bleeding post transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, post-salvage surgery, and death. Efficacy data on survival, re-bleeding and control of bleeding were obtained from high quality studies reported in Cochrane meta-analyses. Baseline outcomes related to the course of disease and health-state utilities were derived from published sources. Vasoactive treatment costs and all related BOV costs were obtained from published UK sources. RESULTS: The average aggregated treatment cost per person for all medical interventions at 1 year was lower for terlipressin-treated patients (2623 pounds sterling) compared with those treated using octreotide (2758 pounds sterling) or placebo (2890 pounds sterling). The incremental analysis comparing terlipressin with octreotide and placebo using a cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and cost per life year gained (LYG) approach indicated that terlipressin was the dominant BOV treatment option (i.e. it cost less and it was more effective). Based on a maximum willingness to pay of 20,000 pounds sterling/QALY terlipressin was more effective and cost-saving compared to octreotide and placebo for simulations ranging from 42 days to 2 years. In point estimation analyses octreotide was dominant compared to placebo; however, probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that octreotide was unlikely to be cost-effective compared to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicated that vasoactive treatment in BOV was cost-saving compared to no vasoactive treatment. Furthermore, terlipressin was the more cost-effective vasoactive treatment for BOV in cirrhotic patients.

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of emergency endoscopic variceal ligation plus octreotide in the treatment of acute esophageal variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients].

OBJECTIVE: To compare and evaluate the cost and effectiveness of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) at emergency plus octreotide versus octreotide alone in the treatment of acute esophageal variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients. METHODS: Seventy-eight patients with active variceal bleeding under emergency endoscope, were assigned to two groups receiving either combined therapy of EVL at emergency and octreotide ('EVL' group) or a continuous infusion of octreotide alone ('octreotide' group). Both efficacy and cost-effectiveness were observed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in patients' characteristics, supporting treatment or general treatment. In group EVL, there appeared a significantly higher rate in controlling bleeding and lower complication rate than that of octreotide group(94.4% vs.78.6%, P = 0.045 and 19.4% vs. 42.9%, P = 0.027, respectively). Early rebleeding and mortality rate were also lower in group EVL, but with no significant differences between them (2.9% vs. 7.7%, P = 0.358 and 5.6% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.205, respectively). The combined therapy had a significantly shorter time of hemostasis, less administration of octreoid, fewer units of blood transfusion and shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001). The median costs of the combined therapy and octreotide alone were RMB 9046.5 Yuan and 13 743.6 Yuan,respectively (P = 0.045). The cost-effective ratio of group EVL seemed superior to that of octreoid group. CONCLUSION: The therapeutic scheme of emergency EVL plus octreotide was a more cost-effective one for controlling acute esophageal variceal bleeding.

Pro/con debate: octreotide has an important role in the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding of unknown origin?

Whether it is the primary reason for admission or a complication of critical illness, upper gastrointestinal bleeding is commonly encountered in the intensive care unit. In this setting, in the absence of endoscopy, intensivists generally provide supportive care (transfusion of blood products) and acid suppression (such as proton pump inhibitors). More recently, octreotide (a somatostatin analogue) has been used in such patients. However, its precise role in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding is not necessarily clear and the drug is associated with significant costs. In this issue of Critical Care, two expert teams debate the merits of using octreotide in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Bench-to-bedside review: Antidotal treatment of sulfonylurea-induced hypoglycaemia with octreotide.

The major potential adverse effect of use of sulfonylurea agents (SUAs) is a hyperinsulinaemic state that causes hypoglycaemia. It may be observed during chronic therapeutic dosing, even with very low doses of a SUA, and especially in older patients. It may also result from accidental or intentional poisoning in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients. The traditional approach to SUA-induced hypoglycaemia includes administration of glucose, and glucagon or diazoxide in those who remain hypoglycaemic despite repeated or continuous glucose supplementation. However, these antidotal approaches are associated with several shortcomings, including further exacerbation of insulin release by glucose and glucagon, leading only to a temporary beneficial effect and later relapse into hypoglycaemia, as well as the adverse effects of both glucagon and diazoxide. Octreotide inhibits the secretion of several neuropeptides, including insulin, and has successfully been used to control life-threatening hypoglycaemia caused by insulinoma or persistent hyperinsulinaemic hypoglycaemia of infancy. Therefore, this agent should in theory also be useful to decrease glucose requirements and the number of hypoglycaemic episodes in patients with SUA-induced hypoglycaemia. This has apparently been confirmed by experimental data, one retrospective study based on chart review, and several anecdotal case reports. There is thus a need for further prospective studies, which should be adequately powered, randomized and controlled, to confirm the probable beneficial effect of octreotide in this setting.

Systematic dose-extension of octreotide LAR: the importance of individual tailoring of treatment in patients with acromegaly.

OBJECTIVE: The depot long-acting somatostatin analogue octreotide LAR (LAR) provides effective and well-tolerated treatment for acromegaly. Despite a 4-weekly recommended injection frequency, prolonged duration of GH suppression has been observed in some patients following treatment with long-acting somatostatin analogues. The aim of our study was to perform a prospective systematic study to determine whether extending the interval between doses of LAR allows maintenance of 'safe' GH in selected patients with acromegaly. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients (15 men, seven women), mean age 58.9 years (35-81 years) with active acromegaly (mGH > 5 mU/l), requiring treatment were selected to receive treatment with LAR. Eleven patients had received previous treatment with both transsphenoidal surgery and radiotherapy, while six had received surgery alone. All patients were commenced on treatment with 20 mg LAR intramuscularly (i.m.) every 4 weeks. Mean GH (mGH) was measured after three consecutive injections immediately prior to the fourth injection. The dose frequency was systematically reduced after every four injections if mGH < 5 mU/l. Once mGH > 5 mU/l, the dose frequency was increased and mGH reassessed. RESULTS: The dosing interval was successfully increased to greater than 4 weeks in 20/22 patients (90.9%). Six of 22 (27.3%) were receiving injections every 8 weeks and 3/22 (13.6%) every 12 weeks. GH and IGF-I were lower on treatment compared with baseline (P < 0.01). There was no difference in individual mGH and IGF-I between the values on 4-weekly dosing and those at final dose frequency. There was no relationship between final dose frequency and either mean GH or IGF-I prior to LAR, patient age, or previous treatment. The percentage suppression following 100 micro g octreotide subcutaneously did not predict subsequent dose frequency of LAR. The drug cost if patients had continued at 4-weekly intervals would be UK pound 187 850, compared with UK pound 101 065 for the individually titrated dose frequency (P < 0.01). This represents a final cost of 53.8% of the 4-weekly injection price. CONCLUSION: Individual tailoring of LAR administration maintains control of acromegaly, with reduced injection frequency and improved cost-effectiveness.

Somatostatin versus octreotide in the treatment of patients with gastrointestinal and pancreatic fistulas.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Gastrointestinal and pancreatic fistulas are characterized as serious complications following abdominal surgery, with a reported incidence of up to 27% and 46%, respectively. Fistula formation results in prolonged hospitalization, increased morbidity/mortality and increased treatment costs. Conservative and surgical approaches are both employed in the management of these fistulas. The purpose of the present study was to assess, evaluate and compare the potential clinical benefit and cost effectiveness of pharmacotherapy (somatostatin versus its analogue octreotide) versus conventional therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-one patients with gastrointestinal or pancreatic fistulas were randomized to three treatment groups: 19 patients received 6000 IU/day of somatostatin intravenously, 17 received 100 microg of octreotide three times daily subcutaneously and 15 patients received only standard medical treatment. RESULTS: The fistula closure rate was 84% in the somatostatin group, 65% in the octreotide group and 27% in the control group. These differences were of statistical significance (P=0.007). Overall mortality rate was less than 5% and statistically significant differences in mortality among the three groups could not be established. Overall, treatment with somatostatin and octreotide was more cost effective than conventional therapy (control group), and somatostatin was more cost effective than octreotide. The average hospital stay was 21.6 days, 27.0 and 31.5 days for the somatostatin, octreotide and control groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Data suggest that pharmacotherapy reduces the costs involved in fistula management (by reducing hospitalization) and also offers increased spontaneous closure rate. Further prospective studies focusing on the above parameters are needed to demonstrate the clinicoeconomic benefits.