Consumption of medicines used for gastric acid-related disorders in Australia and South Korea: a cross-country comparison.

PURPOSE: The study's aim was to compare the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine 2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and mucoprotective medicines (MPs) used for gastric acid-related disorders (GARD) in Australia and South Korea (Korea) from 2004 to 2017. METHODS: Prescription data for PPIs, H2RAs and MPs for Australian outpatients were extracted from the Australian Statistics on Medicines annual reports, with dose-specific and expenditure data obtained from Medicare. Similar data were obtained from Korean National Health Insurance Service claims data. We analysed the volume and expenditure of medicines use annually using the defined daily dose per 1,000 population per day. We calculated which medicines accounted for 90% of use and estimated the proportions of use for low- and high-dose PPIs. RESULTS: While total utilisation for GARD medicines increased over time in both countries, patterns of use differed. Overall, use was somewhat higher in Australia but increased more rapidly in Korea. PPIs were used more extensively in Australia, while more MPs and H2RAs were used in Korea. Expenditure and use of low-dose PPIs is escalating in Korea. CONCLUSION: There were substantial differences in the use of GARD medicines in Australia and Korea over 14 years. Both countries face similar challenges to promote rational medicines use and contain medical care costs. The discrepant prescribing patterns can be attributed to differences in healthcare systems, pharmaceutical policies and demographics. This study provides a baseline to influence more rational use of these medicines. It provides insight into medicines policies for other countries that face similar challenges.

Utilization of Acid Suppression Medication in an Underserved Population.

OBJECTIVES: Acid suppression therapy (AST), composed of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor blockers, and antacids, is one of the most common medication groups used in the United States. Long-term AST is concerning, however, because it is linked with an increased risk of community-acquired pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infections, bone fractures, and nutritional deficiencies. The potentially harmful biological and economic consequences associated with the improper use of acid suppression medications presents a great deal of risk to those in underserved communities. We sought to determine the prevalence of AST in an underserved population and the common diagnoses and symptoms associated with therapy. In addition, we studied the frequency of suboptimal usage of PPIs in an indigent care population and the potential factors related to high-risk behaviors. METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional study using a survey that was distributed to participants during their regularly scheduled visits to a public sector provider of health care for low-income patients. RESULTS: Of the 176 participants surveyed, 70 (40%) were using AST. Esophagitis and gastroesophageal reflux disease were the most prevalent in our sample population. PPIs were the most common acid suppression medication used in our population. Of those using PPIs, 85% were never instructed to cease use. Of the 27 patients with PPI prescriptions, 26 used it in a suboptimal manner, and of those without prescriptions, 7 used it in a suboptimal manner. CONCLUSIONS: ASTs are prevalent in low-income populations, and patients are not being managed appropriately to minimize their risk for complications of AST.

Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Neurocritical Care.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) with acid-suppressive drug therapy is widely utilized in critically ill patients following neurologic injury for the prevention of clinically important stress-related gastrointestinal bleeding (CIB). Data supporting SUP, however, largely originates from studies conducted during an era where practices were vastly different than what is considered routine by today's standard. This is particularly true in neurocritical care patients. In fact, the routine provision of SUP has been challenged due to an increasing prevalence of adverse drug events with acid-suppressive therapy and the perception that CIB rates are sparse. This narrative review will discuss current controversies with SUP as they apply to neurocritical care patients. Specifically, the pathophysiology, prevalence, and risk factors for CIB along with the comparative efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of acid-suppressive therapy will be described.

A Successful Pharmacist-Based Quality Initiative to Reduce Inappropriate Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis Use in an Academic Medical Intensive Care Unit.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is often inappropriately utilized, particularly in critically ill patients. The objective of this study is to find an effective way of reducing inappropriate SUP use in an academic medical intensive care unit (ICU). Medical ICU patients receiving SUP were identified over a 1-month period, and their charts were reviewed to determine whether American Society of Health-System Pharmacists guidelines were followed. Inappropriate usage was calculated as inappropriate patient-days and converted to incidence per 100 patient-days. Two interventions were implemented: (1) Pharmacists reviewed indications for SUP on each patient during daily team rounds and daily medication reconciliation and (2) residents rotating on ICU services were educated on a bimonthly basis. Postintervention data were obtained in a similar fashion. Prior to intervention, the incidence of inappropriate SUP usage was calculated to be 26.75 per 100 patient-days (n = 1099 total patient-days). Total cost attributable to the inappropriate use was $2433. Post intervention, we were able to decrease the inappropriate incidence of SUP usage to 7.14 per 100 patient-days (n = 1149 total patient-days). In addition, total cost of inappropriate use was reduced to $239.80. Our study highlights an effective multidisciplinary approach to reduce the inappropriate use of SUP in an academic medical ICU. We were able to reduce the incidence of inappropriate use of SUP by 73.31% ( P < .001). Furthermore, we were able to decrease the costs by approximately $2200/month.

Appropriateness of Acid Suppression Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The inappropriate startup of long-term acid suppressive therapy (AST) can have clinical and pharmacoeconomic impacts on ambulatory care. OBJECTIVE: To assess the proportion of patients with appropriate initiation of long-term AST in non-critically ill patients. To describe possible risk factors for nonappropriate AST. To calculate the potential savings when eliminating the nonappropriate startup of AST. METHOD: This observational, retrospective study evaluated the appropriateness of startup of long-term AST in medical records using a broad variety of international criteria and guidelines and using a validated screening instrument. RESULTS: A sample of 597 patients was included in the analysis. In 57% of them, AST was appropriately initiated. No specific risk profile could be defined. There was some indication that the availability of a clinical pharmacist and the use of standing orders were correlated to the outcome. Extrapolation to the total population (ie, 2836 patients) led to a total cost of €8880 during hospital stay plus an extra €40 391 per month after discharge. Avoiding inappropriate initiation of AST could lead to a saving of €3805 plus €17 441 per month. CONCLUSION: In all, 43% of initiation of long-term AST in the hospital was inappropriate. The potential savings from avoiding this could be substantial from a health care payer perspective. No patient characteristics that could predict for inappropriate initiation of AST were identified. A correlation between inappropriate initiation and medical disciplines using standing orders that include AST was seen.

Acid Suppressive Therapy for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Noncritically Ill Patients.

BACKGROUND: The current literature discourages the use of acid suppressive therapy (AST) for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in noncritically ill patients. However, several sources indicate that the majority of noncritically ill patients are given AST for SUP while there may only be a small proportion of high-risk patients who need SUP therapy. There is a new scoring system to aid practitioners in stratifying the risk of stress ulcer-related gastrointestinal bleeding in noncritically ill patients developed by Herzig et al and appropriately prescribe AST for SUP in this population. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to determine the current usage of AST in noncritically ill patients at a tertiary teaching hospital and use the new scoring system to identify non-intensive care unit patients who were inappropriately given AST. METHODS: We retrospectively determined the percentage of noncritically ill patients who were given AST on medical floors between January 2010 and December 2012. After identifying these patients, we randomly selected a sample and retrospectively collected data from their medical record to determine the gastrointestinal bleeding risk score to determine if the patient was appropriately given AST. RESULTS: Of the 42 600 admissions, 22 949 (53.7%) noncritically ill patients were given AST. A total of 442 patients were randomly selected for data collection and 156 patients were excluded. Gastrointestinal bleeding risk score was calculated in 286 patients. This new risk stratification tool identified 253 (88.5%) patients to have a low (≤7) and low-medium risk score (8-9). CONCLUSIONS: A large percentage of noncritically ill patients were given AST during their hospital stay; 88.5% of these medications were given inappropriately to patients who were at extremely low risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. Using the above information and the AST prescribing patterns at our institution, we estimate a potential inpatient medication cost savings of $114 622 for the study period.

Cost-effectiveness of histamine receptor-2 antagonist versus proton pump inhibitor for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients*.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the cost-effectiveness of using histamine receptor-2 antagonist or proton pump inhibitor for stress ulcer prophylaxis. DESIGN: Decision analysis model examining costs and effectiveness of using histamine receptor-2 antagonist or proton pump inhibitor for stress ulcer prophylaxis. Costs were expressed in 2012 U.S. dollars from the perspective of the institution and included drug regimens and the following outcomes: clinically significant stress-related mucosal bleed, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and Clostridium difficile infection. Effectiveness was the mortality risk associated with these outcomes and represented by survival. Costs, occurrence rates, and mortality probabilities were extracted from published data. SETTING: A simulation model. PATIENTS: A mixed adult ICU population. INTERVENTIONS: Histamine receptor-2 antagonist or proton pump inhibitor for 9 days of stress ulcer prophylaxis therapy. MAIN MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Output variables were expected costs, expected survival rates, incremental cost, and incremental survival rate. Univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the drivers of incremental cost and incremental survival. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted using second-order Monte Carlo simulation. For the base case analysis, the expected cost of providing stress ulcer prophylaxis was $6,707 with histamine receptor-2 antagonist and $7,802 with proton pump inhibitor, resulting in a cost saving of $1,095 with histamine receptor-2 antagonist. The associated mortality probabilities were 3.819% and 3.825%, respectively, resulting in an absolute survival benefit of 0.006% with histamine receptor-2 antagonist. The primary drivers of incremental cost and survival were the assumptions surrounding ventilator-associated pneumonia and bleed. The probabilities that histamine receptor-2 antagonist was less costly and provided favorable survival were 89.4% and 55.7%, respectively. A secondary analysis assuming equal rates of C. difficile infection showed a cost saving of $908 with histamine receptor-2 antagonists, but the survival benefit of 0.0167% favored proton pump inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Histamine receptor-2 antagonist therapy appears to reduce costs with survival benefit comparable to proton pump inhibitor therapy for stress ulcer prophylaxis. Ventilator-associated pneumonia and bleed are the variables most affecting these outcomes. The uncertainty in the findings justifies a prospective trial.

An economic analysis of inadequate prescription of antiulcer medications for in-hospital patients at a third level institution in Colombia.

INTRODUCTION: The prescription and costs of antiulcer medications for in-hospital use have increased during recent years with reported inadequate use and underused. AIM: To determine the patterns of prescription-indication and also perform an economic analysis of the overcost caused by the non-justified use of antiulcer medications in a third level hospital in Colombia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional study of prescription-indication of antiulcer medications for patients hospitalized in "Hospital Universitario San Jorge" of Pereira during July of 2012. Adequate or inadequate prescription of the first antiulcer medication prescribed was determined as well as for others prescribed during the hospital stay, supported by clinical practice guidelines from the Zaragoza I sector workgroup, clinical guidelines from the Australian Health Department, and finally the American College of Gastroenterology Criteria for stress ulcer prophylaxis. Daily defined dose per bed/day was used, as well as the cost for 100 beds/day and the cost of each bed/drug. A multivariate analysis was carried out using SPSS 21.0. RESULTS: 778 patients were analyzed, 435 men (55.9 %) and 343 women, mean age 56.6 +/- 20.1 years. The number of patients without justification for the prescription of the first antiulcer medication was 377 (48.5 %), and during the whole in-hospital time it was 336 (43.2 %). Ranitidine was the most used medication, in 438 patients (56.3 %). The cost/month for poorly justified antiulcer medications was € 3,335.6. The annual estimated cost for inadequate prescriptions of antiulcer medications was € 16,770.0 per 100 beds. CONCLUSION: A lower inadequate prescription rate of antiulcer medications was identified compared with other studies; however it was still high and is troubling because of the major costs that these inadequate prescriptions generates for the institution.

Proton pump inhibitor prescribing and costs in a large outpatient clinic.

UNLABELLED: Concerns have been raised regarding potential adverse effects and high costs of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Our objective was to assess issues of PPI utilization and expense in a large outpatient clinic population. METHODS: Two hundred-fifty-nine outpatient records were reviewed regarding PPI prescribing and indications during 2009. A cost analysis was performed to project cost differences if histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) were used as an alternative to PPIs in appropriate clinical situations. RESULTS: Eighty-three (32.0%) were taking PPIs. Problem-listed gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) was the primary diagnosis in 69 (83.1%) of patients on PPIs. GERD was not apparent by documented history and/or endoscopy in 46.3% of problem-listed GERD patients. Symptom severity had been documented in only 36.2%. Cost analysis projected substantial savings if H2RAs had been used initially for mild to moderate symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient PPI prescribing indications are not well documented and PPI use is probably excessive. H2RA therapy is likely underutilized.

Cost-effectiveness analysis: stress ulcer bleeding prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors, H2 receptor antagonists.

OBJECTIVES: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) present varying pharmacological efficacy in preventing stress ulcer bleeding (SUB) in intensive care units. The literature also reports disparate rates of ventilator-assisted pneumonia (VAP) as side effects of these treatments. We compared the cost-effectiveness of these two prophylactic pharmacological options. METHODS: We constructed a decision tree with a 60-day time horizon for patients at high risk for developing SUB, receiving either PPIs or H2RAs. For each treatment strategy, patients could be in one of three states of health: SUB, VAP, or no complication. Contemporary, clinically relevant probabilities were obtained from a broad literature search. Costs were estimated by using a representative US countrywide database. A third-party payer perspective was adopted. Cost-effectiveness and univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Probabilities of SUB and VAP were 1.3% and 10.3% for PPIs versus 6.6% and 10.3% for H2RAs, respectively. Lengths of stay and per diem costs were 24 days and US $2764 for SUB, 42 days and US $3310 for VAP, and 14 days and US $2993 for patients without complications. Average costs per no complication were US $58,700 for PPIs and US $63,920 for H2RAs. The H2RA strategy was dominated by PPIs. Sensitivity analysis showed that these findings were sensitive to VAP rates but PPIs remain cost-effective. The acceptability curve shows the stability of the probabilistic results according to varying willingness-to-pay values. CONCLUSION: PPI prophylaxis is the most efficient prophylactic strategy in patients at high risk of developing SUB when compared with using H2RAs.

Gastroprotective strategies in chronic NSAID users: a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing single-tablet formulations with individual components.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of competing gastroprotective strategies, including single-tablet formulations, in the prevention of gastrointestinal (GI) complications in patients with chronic arthritis taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). METHODS: We performed a cost-utility analysis to compare eight gastroprotective strategies including NSAIDs, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists, misoprostol, and single-tablet formulations. We derived estimates for outcomes and costs from medical literature. The primary outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. We performed sensitivity analyses to assess the effect of GI complications, compliance rates, and drug costs. RESULTS: For average-risk patients, NSAID + PPI cotherapy was most cost-effective. The NSAID/PPI single-tablet formulation became cost-effective only when its price decreased from €0.78 to €0.56 per tablet, or when PPI compliance fell below 51% in the NSAID + PPI strategy. All other strategies were more costly and less effective. The model was highly sensitive to the GI complication risk, costs of PPI and NSAID/PPI single-tablet formulation, and compliance to PPI. In patients with a threefold higher risk of GI complications, both NSAID + PPI cotherapy and single-tablet formulation were cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: NSAID + PPI cotherapy is the most cost-effective strategy in all patients with chronic arthritis irrespective of their risk for GI complications. For patients with increased GI risk, the NSAID/PPI single-tablet formulation is also cost-effective.

Effect and cost-effectiveness of step-up versus step-down treatment with antacids, H2-receptor antagonists, and proton pump inhibitors in patients with new onset dyspepsia (DIAMOND study): a primary-care-based randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Substantial physician workload and high costs are associated with the treatment of dyspepsia in primary health care. Despite the availability of consensus statements and guidelines, the most cost-effective empirical strategy for initial management of the condition remains to be determined. We compared step-up and step-down treatment strategies for initial management of patients with new onset dyspepsia in primary care. METHODS: Patients aged 18 years and older who consulted with their family doctor for new onset dyspepsia in the Netherlands were eligible for enrolment in this double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Between October, 2003, and January, 2006, 664 patients were randomly assigned to receive stepwise treatment with antacid, H(2)-receptor antagonist, and proton pump inhibitor (step-up; n=341), or these drugs in the reverse order (step-down; n=323), by use of a computer-generated sequence with blocks of six. Each step lasted 4 weeks and treatment only continued with the next step if symptoms persisted or relapsed within 4 weeks. Primary outcomes were symptom relief and cost-effectiveness of initial management at 6 months. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT); the ITT population consisted of all patients with data for the primary outcome at 6 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00247715. FINDINGS: 332 patients in the step-up, and 313 in the step-down group reached an endpoint with sufficient data for evaluation; the main reason for dropout was loss to follow-up. Treatment success after 6 months was achieved in 238 (72%) patients in the step-up group and 219 (70%) patients in the step-down group (odds ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.7-1.3). The average medical costs were lower for patients in the step-up group than for those in the step-down group (euro228 vs euro245; p=0.0008), which was mainly because of costs of medication. One or more adverse drug events were reported by 94 (28%) patients in the step-up and 93 (29%) patients in the step-down group. All were minor events, including (other) dyspeptic symptoms, diarrhoea, constipation, and bad/dry taste. INTERPRETATION: Although treatment success with either step-up or step-down treatment is similar, the step-up strategy is more cost effective at 6 months for initial treatment of patients with new onset dyspeptic symptoms in primary care.

Marked increase in proton pump inhibitors use in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the trends in the prescribing of subsidized proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine receptor antagonists (H2RAs), in the Australian population from 1995 to 2006 to encourage discussion regarding appropriate clinical use. PPIs and H2RAs are the second highest drug cost to the publicly subsidized Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). DESIGN: Government data on numbers of subsidized scripts, quantity and doses for PPIs and H2RAs were analysed by gender and age, dose and indication. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Drug utilisation as DDD [defined daily dose]/1000 population/day. RESULTS: The use of combined PPIs increased by 1318%. Utilisation increased substantially after the relaxation of the subsidized indications for PPIs in 2001. Omeprazole had the largest market share but was substituted by its S-enantiomer esomeprazole after its introduction in 2002. There was considerable use in the elderly with the peak use being in those aged 80 years and over. The utilisation of H2RAs declined 72% over 12 years. CONCLUSIONS: PPI use has increased substantially, not only due to substitution of H2RAs but to expansion in the overall market. Utilisation does not appear to be commensurate with prevalence of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) nor with prescribing guidelines for PPIs, with significant financial costs to patients and PBS. This study encourages clinical discussion regarding quality use of these medicines.

The burden of disrupting gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a database study in US and European cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Recent data indicate that among patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) there is a subgroup with a higher disrupting burden of illness in terms of symptom frequency and overall impact. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the burden of disrupting versus non-disrupting GORD on individuals, healthcare providers and society. METHODS: Data were obtained from European (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK) and US respondents in the 2007 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS). Respondents with GORD were classified as having disrupting or non-disrupting GORD based on self-reported symptom frequency, presence of night-time symptoms and medication usage. Disrupting GORD was defined as the presence of GORD symptoms on at least 2 days/week in addition to either night-time symptoms or use of prescribed/over-the-counter medication at least twice a week during the past month. RESULTS: Of 116 536 respondents included in the 2007 NHWS, 23% reported GORD symptoms; 39% of these were acknowledged as having disrupting GORD. These patients had higher healthcare resource utilization than those with non-disrupting disease. Respondents with disrupting GORD also had poorer health-related quality of life, greater impairments in health-related work productivity and absenteeism (all p < 0.05 vs non-disrupting GORD), and higher associated total medical costs. Overall, patients with physician-diagnosed GORD also had significantly lower health-related quality of life than self-diagnosed respondents (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: GORD is a common disease that places a substantial burden on affected individuals and society. A high proportion of patients have disrupting GORD, which has significant adverse potential from both a clinical and an economic perspective.

Overutilization of proton pump inhibitors: a review of cost-effectiveness and risk [corrected].

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are superior to histamine-2 receptor antagonists for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and erosive esophagitis. Antisecretory therapy (AST), however, accounts for significant cost expenditure in the United States including over-the-counter and prescription formulations. Moreover, emerging data illustrate the potential risks associated with long-term PPI therapy including variations in bioavailability of common medications, vitamin B12 deficiency, Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea, community-acquired pneumonia, and hip fracture. For these reasons, it is imperative to use the lowest dose of drug necessary to achieve desired therapeutic goals. This may entail the use of step-down, step-off, or on-demand PPI therapy for the treatment of GERD. In addition, PPIs are the most commonly used medications for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), despite little evidence to support their use. Compounding this problem is evidence that patients erroneously administered SUP are often discharged on long-term PPI therapy. Pharmacy-driven step-down orders, limitation of the use of PPIs for SUP in non-ICU settings, and meticulous chart review to ensure that hospitalized patients are not discharged home on a PPI without an appropriate indication are interventions that can ensure proper PPI utilization with minimal of risk and optimization of cost-effectiveness.

Gastroprotective drugs in Australia: utilization patterns between 1997 and 2006 in relation to NSAID prescribing.

BACKGROUND: In Australia, the prescribing of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine type 2 receptor antagonists (H(2)RAs) for defined gastrointestinal disorders is approved for subsidy by the universal Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. These agents also may be used with NSAIDs, but this prescribing is not approved for subsidy. PPI prescribing increased in Australia between 1997 and 2006, and some authorities are concerned that this increase may be due to prescriptions outside the approved indications. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to quantify gastroprotective drug consumption in Australia between 1997 and 2006 and to investigate the relationship over time between this prescribing and NSAID prescribing. METHODS: Data from concession beneficiaries (seniors and welfare recipients) were included. Data on PPIs, H(2)RAs, NSAIDs, and cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors dispensed between 1997 and 2006 were gathered from Medicare Australia and are expressed as defined daily doses (DDDs) per 1000 concession beneficiaries per day (CBPDs). Gastroprotective drugs were defined using the World Health Organization Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification of 2006. Drug utilization 90% and expenditures in Australian dollars (AUD $, not normalized to an index year) were calculated. RESULTS: H(2)RA prescribing was stable between 1997 and 2001, at approximately 60 DDDs/1000 CBPDs. Dispensation of H(2)RAs began to decrease in 2001 to 20 DDDs/ 1000 CBPDs in 2006. PPI consumption increased consistently, with a sharp change beginning in 2001 (from about 45 to 140 DDDs/1000 CBPDs between 2001 and 2006). The government expenditure for PPIs per concession beneficiary per year also increased from about AUD $26 in 1997 to almost AUD $74 in 2006, whereas the expenditure for H2RAs decreased from about AUD $24 to about AUD $5. Nonselective NSAID prescribing decreased with the introduction of COX-2 inhibitors in 2000. COX-2 inhibitors increased the overall consumption of total NSAIDs in the first 4 years (2000-2003) after their introduction. CONCLUSIONS: The prescribing of H(2)RAs decreased, whereas the prescribing of PPIs increased, between 1997 and 2006 in this population of concession beneficiaries in Australia. During the same period, nonselective NSAID prescribing decreased while COX-2 inhibitor prescribing increased.

Costs and effects of various analgesic treatments for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the balance between costs and upper gastrointestinal (GI) side effects of treatment with celecoxib, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) alone, NSAID plus misoprostol, NSAID plus histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H(2)RA), NSAID plus proton pump inhibitor (PPI), and Arthrotec in The Netherlands. METHODS: A model was used to convene data from various sources on the probability of GI side effects and resource use. The probabilities of GI side effects for celecoxib and NSAIDs alone were derived from trial data. Calculations were based on 6 months of treatment, and were from a societal perspective. Distinction was made between low-, medium-, and high-risk patients. An extensive probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to address uncertainty. RESULTS: Assuming an average patient, the total costs per 6 months of therapy were: celecoxib 255 Euro, NSAIDs alone 166 Euro, NSAID plus misoprostol 285 Euro, NSAID plus H(2)RA 284 Euro, NSAID plus PPI 243 Euro, and Arthrotec 187 Euro. Treatment with celecoxib was associated with the lowest number of GI side effects and related deaths. Incremental costs per life-year saved for Arthrotec compared to NSAIDs alone were 5676 Euro for all patients and 526 Euro for medium-to-high-risk patients, whereas for high-risk patients, Arthrotec dominated NSAID alone. For celecoxib compared to Arthrotec, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were 56,667 Euro, 33,684 Euro, and 15,429 Euro, respectively. CONCLUSION: Assuming a limit of 20,000 Euro per life-year gained, from an economic point of view, Arthrotec is the preferred treatment when all patients or medium-to-high-risk patients are considered. In high-risk patients, celecoxib is the preferred treatment strategy.