Sequential Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy in Myanmar; a randomized clinical trial of efficacy and tolerability.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: There is little published research to examine the best approach to the management of Helicobacter pylori in Myanmar. This study aimed to determine the relative efficacy and tolerability of sequential eradication therapy compared to Myanmar's current recommendation of a concomitant four drug regimen. METHODS: Patients were screened for H. pylori using monoclonal Stool Antigen Testing (SAT). Those testing positive were randomized 1:1 to receive receive Myanmar's first-line regimen of 14 days of concomitant rabeprazole, clarithromycin, amoxycillin and tinidazole (140 pills, cost US$23) or 10 days of sequential rabeprazole, clarithromycin, amoxycillin and tinidazole (60 pills, cost US$10). Adherence and adverse effects were recorded, and the efficacy of the regimens assessed with repeat SAT. RESULTS: Of the 1011 patients screened for H. pylori infection, 313 (31%) tested positive. There was no statistical difference in the cure rates of the two regimens in either intention-to-treat: 128/157 (82%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 75-87%) receiving sequential therapy versus 123/156 (79%; 95% CI: 72-85%) receiving concomitant therapy (P = 0.55) or per-protocol analysis: 125/131 (95%; 95% CI: 90-98) receiving sequential therapy versus 121/130 (93%; 95% CI: 87-96) receiving concomitant therapy (P = 0.42). Side effects of therapy were reported in 54/157 (47%) patients taking sequential therapy compared with 62/156 (53%) taking concomitant therapy, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: In this high-burden, resource-poor setting, less expensive sequential therapy was as effective and as well tolerated as the currently recommended concomitant four drug regimen for eradication of H. pylori.

Trend analysis of proton pump inhibitor consumption and expenditure: The real-world evidence.

INTRODUCTION: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) constitute a widely utilized pharmaceutical class, frequently associated with notable instances of therapeutic inappropriateness. Such patterns of misuse not only contribute to elevated healthcare expenditure, but may also exacerbate clinical conditions in certain patients. METHODS: A comprehensive analysis was conducted between 2019 and 2023 to assess all prescriptions dispensed using the Anatomical, Therapeutic and Chemical (ATC) classification system, which allowed trends among primary PPIs to be visualized. This was achieved by calculating the defined daily dose (DDD) and then defining the total expenditure incurred on these drugs. RESULTS: With regard to the prescription of PPIs, an upward trend in consumption was observed with a decreasing expenditure, due to the phenomena of drug generics and increased competition between pharmaceutical companies, ranging from €9,512,481.22 in the first six months of 2019 to €8,509,820.80 in the first six months of 2023. From 2019 to 2023, consumption increased by approximately 3 million DDDs for a total ranging from 18,483,167.59 DDDs to 21,480,871.00 DDDs. Pantoprazole and esomeprazole, the most expensive drugs compared to omeprazole, rabeprazole and lansoprazole, accounted for 61.4% of therapies in the first six months of 2023, up from 2019, where these two drugs were prescribed 54.9%. CONCLUSION: Within this analysis, we provide an illustrative representation of the prescribing trends for PPIs within a European context. Omeprazole, rabeprazole and lansoprazole appear to be the cheapest drugs compared to pantoprazole and esomeprazole. However, the results show that the most widely used PPIs, despite their therapeutic equivalence, are precisely the high-cost ones, thus generating higher expenditure for central governments.

Cost-utility analysis of a 'vonoprazan-first' strategy versus 'esomeprazole- or rabeprazole-first' strategy in GERD.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) can be treated using a vonoprazan-first strategy (first-line treatment with vonoprazan), or esomeprazole-first/rabeprazole-first strategies (first-line treatment with proton-pump inhibitors [PPIs], esomeprazole/rabeprazole, followed by a switch to vonoprazan). This cost-utility analysis used long-term simulation modeling to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a vonoprazan-first strategy compared with the esomeprazole-first and rabeprazole-first strategies. METHODS: A Markov simulation model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of vonoprazan-first, esomeprazole-first, and rabeprazole-first strategies, comprising healing and maintenance therapies, over 5 years (4-week cycles). Healing therapy began with the administration of a normal dose of drug per real-world practice. If patients were not healed endoscopically, either a longer duration of healing therapy was provided (vonoprazan), the dose was increased (rabeprazole), or patients were switched to vonoprazan (immediately for esomeprazole, and after dose-escalation for rabeprazole, respectively). Healed patients received maintenance (lower/same dose as healing therapy). Recurrence resulted in re-challenge with healing therapy. Transition probabilities were derived from the results of indirect comparisons (network meta-analysis) and costs calculated from the Japanese payer perspective. Outcomes were defined as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with utilities based on published values. RESULTS: Expected costs of the vonoprazan-, esomeprazole-, and rabeprazole-first strategies were ¥36,194, ¥76,719, and ¥41,105, respectively, over 5 years. QALY gains for vonoprazan-first strategy versus the esomeprazole- and rabeprazole-first strategies were 0.014 and 0.003, respectively. Both estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were dominant and robust to two sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Vonoprazan-first strategy increased QALYs and appeared to be cost-effective for GERD patients compared with the esomeprazole- or rabeprazole-first strategies.

Direct costs for nonsurgical management of Chronic Pancreatitis in a tertiary care teaching hospital.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a leading cause of hospitalization among gastrointestinal diseases resulting in considerable financial burden to patients. However the direct costs for nonsurgical management in CP remains unexplored. METHODS: A cross sectional study was carried out (2011-14) in the Department of Gastroenterology, Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, India. Demographic and clinical data on laboratory investigations, interventions and follow up were obtained from the medical records department. Item costs were derived from the hospital electronic billing section. Cost was expressed as median annual cost per patient. RESULTS: 65 (male 48; 73.8%) patients were included. Their median age was 31 (range 12-68) years. The annual median (IQR) total cost per patient was INR 88,892 (70,550.5-116,004); [USD 1410(1119-1841); € 1155(916-1507)], comprising of INR 61,089 (39,102.5-90,360.5) [USD 970 (621-1434); € 793(508-1174)] for outpatient management and INR 32,450 (11,016-46,958) [USD 515 (175-745); €421(143-610)] for hospitalization. 69.5% of the treatment cost was attributed to outpatient treatment. Drugs contributed to 54%, hospitalization incurred 30.5%, investigations 12% and professional fees (3.5%) of the total cost. Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) cost contributed to three-quarters of drug therapy. Use of rabeprazole as against pantoprazole reduced the overall annual cost of therapy by 4%. CONCLUSIONS: This study depicts the first nonsurgical management of accrued direct costs associated with CP due to expensive medications. Due to the high cost for PERT, its usefulness needs proper validation by cost benefit analysis.