Multivariate Assessment for Bioequivalence Based on the Correlation of Random Effect.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Bioequivalence tests are fundamental step in assessing the equivalence in bioavailability between a test and reference product. In practice, two separate linear mixed models (LMMs) with random subject effects, which have an area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) and the peak concentration (Cmax) as the responses, have become the gold standard for evaluating bioequivalence. Recently, Lee et al developed a multivariate hierarchical generalized linear model (HGLM) for several responses that modeled correlations among multivariate responses via correlated random effects. The objective of this study was to apply this multivariate analysis to the bioequivalence test in practice and to compare the performance of multivariate HGLM and separate LMMs. METHODS: Three pharmacokinetic datasets, fixed-dose combination (naproxen and esomeprazole), tramadol and fimasartan data were analyzed. We compared the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of a test product to a reference product using the multivariate HGLM and two conventional separate LMMs. RESULTS: We found that the 90% CIs for the GMRs of both AUC and Cmax from the multivariate HGLM were narrower than those from the separate LMMs: (0.843, 1.152) vs (0.825, 1.177) for Cmax of esomeprazole in fixed-dose combination data; (0.805, 0.931) vs (0.797, 0.941) for Cmax in tramadol data; (0.801, 1.501) vs (0.762, 1.578) for Cmax and (1.163, 1.332) vs (1.009, 1.341) for AUC in fimasartan data, consistent with the random subject effects from two separate LMMs being highly correlated in the three datasets (correlation coefficient r = 0.883; r = 0.966; r = 0.832). CONCLUSION: This multivariate HGLM had good performance in the bioequivalence test with multiple endpoints. This method would provide a more reasonable option to reduce the 90% CI by adding correlation parameters and thus an advantage especially in evaluating the bioequivalence of highly variable drugs with broad 90% CIs.

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.

Comparison the cost-efficacy of furazolidone-based versus clarithromycin-based quadruple therapy in initial treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection in a variable clarithromycin drug-resistant region, a single-center, prospective, randomized, open-label study.

Helicobacter pylori (Hp) drug resistant rate to clarithromycin (CLA) has increased to 20% to 50%, which cause concerns regarding its effectiveness in eradicating Hp, we aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CLA-based versus furazolidone (FZD)-based quadruple therapy, and assess factors that affect anti-Hp efficacy.One hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled in this single-center, prospective, randomized, open-label study. In FZD group, 92 patients were treated with FZD plus esomeprazole, bismuth potassium citrate, and amoxicillin for 14 days. In CLA group, 93 patients were treated with the same regimen except FZD was replaced by CLA. Patients were tested 4 weeks post-treatment to confirm eradication.Of the 185 enrolled patients, 180 completed the study. On intention-to-treat analysis, Hp eradication rates in FZD and CLA groups were 90.22% and 86.02% (P = .378); in per-protocol analysis, their eradication rates were 93.26% and 87.91%, respectively (P = .220). Overall incidence of total side effects in FZD and CLA groups was 19.57% and 13.98%, and their severe side effects were 3.26% and 2.15%, respectively (P > .05). Cost-effectiveness ratios of FZD and CLA groups were 0.75 and 1.02, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of FZD group over CLA group was -3.62. Eradication failures were not associated with factors including gender, age, body mass index, smoking, alcohol consumption, educational level, and urban-rural distribution in this observation (P > .05).Despite increasing drug resistance to CLA, Hp eradication rates in FZD and CLA groups have no significant difference at present; as FZD-based quadruple therapy is more cost-effective, we recommend this regimen be a first-line choice for Hp eradication.

Half-dose clarithromycin-containing bismuth quadruple therapy is effective and economical in treating Helicobacter pylori infection: A single-center, open-label, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Clarithromycin-containing bismuth quadruple therapy has been recommended as the first-line therapy for H pylori infection in China. However, its expensive cost and high antibiotic-related adverse reactions are always haunting us. To find a safer, more cost-effective, and high eradicative strategy for Helicobacter treatment, we investigated the efficacy of 14-day bismuth quadruple therapy and different doses of clarithromycin in the first-line treatment. METHOD: A total of 210 patients with H pylori infection were recruited and randomly assigned to half-dose clarithromycin group (esomeprazole 20 mg bid, amoxicillin 1 g bid, clarithromycin 250 mg bid, and bismuth potassium citrate 0.6 g bid) for 14 days or standard-dose clarithromycin group (esomeprazole 20 mg bid, amoxicillin 1 g bid, clarithromycin 500 mg bid, and bismuth potassium citrate 0.6 g bid) for 14 days. A 13 C-urea breath test (13 C-UBT) was performed at least 4 weeks after treatment. The eradication rate of H pylori, the incidence of side effects, and the cost-effectiveness of regimens were evaluated in this study. RESULTS: The eradication frequencies were 86.67% for both groups in the intention-to-treat analysis, while the per-protocol eradication rates were 91% vs. 91.92% (p=0.817). The incidence of adverse events was higher in standard dose group (54.21% vs. 34.29%; p=0.004), especially bitter taste symptom. There was a higher level of costs per person associated with the standard-dose group as compared with half-dose group (ï¿¥804.3 vs ï¿¥654.36). The cost-effectiveness ratio of the half dose was less than that of the standard dose (7.55 vs 9.16 CNY per percent). CONCLUSIONS: A 14-day half-dose clarithromycin-containing bismuth quadruple regimen is as effective as the standard bismuth quadruple therapy at eradicating H pylori, which is better tolerated and more economical. (ChiCTR-ROC-15007406).

Industry Payments to Physicians and Prescriptions of Brand-Name Proton-Pump Inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the association between industry payments and prescriptions of 2 brand-name proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs). STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional retrospective. SETTING: Physicians nationwide. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We identified all physicians receiving industry payments for Dexilant and Nexium 2014-2015 from the Open Payments database. We linked this to records of prescriptions for PPIs paid for by Medicare Part D these same years and compared the proportion of prescriptions written for Dexilant and Nexium in industry-compensated vs nonindustry compensated physicians. The number and dollar amount of payments were associated with the rate of drug prescriptions. RESULTS: We identified 254,452 physicians prescribing PPIs; 8586 and 2766 physicians received industry payments for Dexilant and Nexium, respectively. A total of 5052 of 7876 (64%) physicians compensated for Dexilant prescribed Dexilant vs 39,778 of 246,571 (16%) noncompensated physicians ( P < .001). For Nexium, 2525 of 2654 (95%) compensated physicians prescribed Nexium, compared to 123,913 of 252,067 (49%) noncompensated physicians. For both Dexilant and Nexium, there was a significant correlation between the number (ρ = 0.22, P < .001 and ρ = 0.12, P < .001) and dollar amount (ρ = 0.22, P < .001 and ρ = 0.13, P < .001) of payments and the percentage of prescriptions written for the compensated drug. Industry payments for Nexium remained associated with rate of prescription even after generic esomeprazole became available. CONCLUSION: Both the number and dollar amount of industry payments were associated with increased prescriptions for both Dexilant and Nexium. Although unable to show causality, this study suggests that industry payments may increase physician prescriptions of costly, brand-name drugs.

Esomeprazole and aspirin in Barrett's oesophagus (AspECT): a randomised factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal adenocarcinoma is the sixth most common cause of cancer death worldwide and Barrett's oesophagus is the biggest risk factor. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of high-dose esomeprazole proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) and aspirin for improving outcomes in patients with Barrett's oesophagus. METHODS: The Aspirin and Esomeprazole Chemoprevention in Barrett's metaplasia Trial had a 2 × 2 factorial design and was done at 84 centres in the UK and one in Canada. Patients with Barrett's oesophagus of 1 cm or more were randomised 1:1:1:1 using a computer-generated schedule held in a central trials unit to receive high-dose (40 mg twice-daily) or low-dose (20 mg once-daily) PPI, with or without aspirin (300 mg per day in the UK, 325 mg per day in Canada) for at least 8 years, in an unblinded manner. Reporting pathologists were masked to treatment allocation. The primary composite endpoint was time to all-cause mortality, oesophageal adenocarcinoma, or high-grade dysplasia, which was analysed with accelerated failure time modelling adjusted for minimisation factors (age, Barrett's oesophagus length, intestinal metaplasia) in all patients in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2004-003836-77. FINDINGS: Between March 10, 2005, and March 1, 2009, 2557 patients were recruited. 705 patients were assigned to low-dose PPI and no aspirin, 704 to high-dose PPI and no aspirin, 571 to low-dose PPI and aspirin, and 577 to high-dose PPI and aspirin. Median follow-up and treatment duration was 8·9 years (IQR 8·2-9·8), and we collected 20 095 follow-up years and 99·9% of planned data. 313 primary events occurred. High-dose PPI (139 events in 1270 patients) was superior to low-dose PPI (174 events in 1265 patients; time ratio [TR] 1·27, 95% CI 1·01-1·58, p=0·038). Aspirin (127 events in 1138 patients) was not significantly better than no aspirin (154 events in 1142 patients; TR 1·24, 0·98-1·57, p=0·068). If patients using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were censored at the time of first use, aspirin was significantly better than no aspirin (TR 1·29, 1·01-1·66, p=0·043; n=2236). Combining high-dose PPI with aspirin had the strongest effect compared with low-dose PPI without aspirin (TR 1·59, 1·14-2·23, p=0·0068). The numbers needed to treat were 34 for PPI and 43 for aspirin. Only 28 (1%) participants reported study-treatment-related serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: High-dose PPI and aspirin chemoprevention therapy, especially in combination, significantly and safely improved outcomes in patients with Barrett's oesophagus. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, AstraZeneca, Wellcome Trust, and Health Technology Assessment.

Quadruple, sequential, and concomitant first-line therapies for H. pylori eradication: a prospective, randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Current Italian guidelines recommend 10-day bismuth-based or bismuth-free (sequential and concomitant) regimens for first-line H. pylori eradication. However, comparison among these regimens is lacking in our country. AIM: To perform a 'head-to-head' comparison among these three therapies as first-line treatment for H. pylori eradication in clinical practice. METHODS: This was a prospective, open-label randomized study enrolling consecutive patients diagnosed with H. pylori infection never previously treated. Patients were randomized to receive one of the following 10-day therapies: (a) Bismuth-based therapy: esomeprazole 20mg b.i.d and Pylera 3 tablets q.i.d; (b) Concomitant therapy: esomeprazole 20mg plus amoxicyllin 1,000mg, clarithromycin 500mg and tinidazole 500mg (all b.i.d.), and (c) Sequential therapy: esomeprazole 20mg plus amoxicyllin 1,000mg for 5days followed by esomeprazole 20mg plus clarithromycin 500mg and tinidazole 500mg for 5days (all b.i.d). H. pylori eradication was assessed by using UBT 4-6 weeks after the end of therapy. RESULTS: Overall, 187 patients were enrolled. The eradication rates achieved with Pylera, concomitant and sequential were 85.2%, 95.2%, and 93.6%, respectively, at intention to treat, and 94.5%, 96.7%, and 95.1% at per protocol analyses, without a statistically significant difference. The incidence of severe side-effects was higher with the bismuth-based therapy than with the two bismuth-free regimens (9.8% vs 1.6%; p=0.046). CONCLUSIONS: Bismuth-based and bismuth-free therapies are equally effective for first-line H. pylori eradication. However, bismuth therapy was more frequently interrupted for side-effects than bismuth-free therapies.

Proton Pump Inhibitors Increase Risk for Hepatic Encephalopathy in Patients With Cirrhosis in A Population Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a serious complication of cirrhosis and is associated with gut dysbiosis. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), frequently prescribed to patients with cirrhosis, can contribute to small-bowel bacterial overgrowth. We investigated whether PPI predisposes patients with cirrhosis to HE using a large database of patients. METHODS: We performed a case-control study nested within a sample of Taiwan National Health Insurance beneficiaries (n = 1,000,000), followed up longitudinally from 1998 through 2011. Patients with cirrhosis and an occurrence of HE (n = 1166) were selected as the case cohort and matched to patients without HE (1:1, controls) for sex, enrollment time, end point time, follow-up period, and advanced cirrhosis. Information on prescribed drugs, drug dosage, supply days, and numbers of dispensed pills was extracted from the Taiwan National Health Insurance database. PPI use was defined as more than 30 cumulative defined daily doses (cDDDs); PPI nonuse was defined as 30 cDDDs or fewer. We performed logistic regression analyses to estimate the association between PPI use and the occurrence of HE. RESULTS: Among patients with cirrhosis and an occurrence of HE, 38% (n = 445) had a history of PPI use before HE occurrence. We observed a relationship between dose of PPI taken and HE risk. The confounder-adjusted odd ratios were 1.41 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.84), 1.51 (95% CI, 1.11-2.06), and 3.01 (95% CI, 1.78-5.10) for patients with 30-120 cDDDs, 120-365 cDDDs, and more than 365 cDDDs, respectively, compared with PPI nonusers. All categories of PPIs, except rabeprazole, were associated with an increased risk of HE. CONCLUSIONS: Based on an analysis of data from Taiwan National Health Insurance beneficiaries, we found that use of PPIs in patients with cirrhosis increases the risk for HE; risk increases with dose. It therefore is important for health care providers to carefully consider prolonged PPI use by patients with cirrhosis.

Multi-indication Pharmacotherapeutic Multicriteria Decision Analytic Model for the Comparative Formulary Inclusion of Proton Pump Inhibitors in Qatar.

PURPOSE: The formulary inclusion of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in the government hospital health services in Qatar is not comparative or restricted. Requests to include a PPI in the formulary are typically accepted if evidence of efficacy and tolerability is presented. There are no literature reports of a PPI scoring model that is based on comparatively weighted multiple indications and no reports of PPI selection in Qatar or the Middle East. This study aims to compare first-line use of the PPIs that exist in Qatar. The economic effect of the study recommendations was also quantified. METHODS: A comparative, evidence-based multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) model was constructed to follow the multiple indications and pharmacotherapeutic criteria of PPIs. Literature and an expert panel informed the selection criteria of PPIs. Input from the relevant local clinician population steered the relative weighting of selection criteria. Comparatively scored PPIs, exceeding a defined score threshold, were recommended for selection. FINDINGS: Weighted model scores were successfully developed, with 95% CI and 5% margin of error. The model comprised 7 main criteria and 38 subcriteria. Main criteria are indication, dosage frequency, treatment duration, best published evidence, available formulations, drug interactions, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. Most weight was achieved for the indications selection criteria. Esomeprazole and rabeprazole were suggested as formulary options, followed by lansoprazole for nonformulary use. The estimated effect of the study recommendations was up to a 15.3% reduction in the annual PPI expenditure. Robustness of study conclusions against variabilities in study inputs was confirmed via sensitivity analyses. IMPLICATIONS: The implementation of a locally developed PPI-specific comparative MCDA scoring model, which is multiweighted indication and criteria based, into the Qatari formulary selection practices is a successful evidence-based cost-cutting exercise. Esomeprazole and rabeprazole should be the first-line choice from among the PPIs available at the Qatari government hospital health services.

Esomeprazole formulary exclusion: impact on total health care services use and costs.

Esomeprazole was excluded from the United Healthcare formulary for all commercial health plan members January 1, 2007. A retrospective analysis of the Ingenix LabRx database (September 1, 2005, through June 30, 2007) evaluated the effect of this exclusion on health care utilization and costs in a real-world setting. Total medical care services, including pharmacy claims, were examined for 6 months before and after the esomeprazole exclusion. Patients aged ≥ 18 years were included if they had continuous health plan enrollment (September 1, 2005, through June 30, 2007), ≥ 1 esomeprazole prescription during the index period (March 1 through August 31, 2006), and ≥ 2 esomeprazole prescriptions (with no switch to another proton pump inhibitor [PPI]) during the baseline period (sliding 6-month window from September 1 through August 31, 2006). During the 6-month post-exclusion period (January 1 through June 30, 2007), 19.5% of patients remained on esomeprazole, 43% switched to another PPI, and 37.5% had no prescription PPI claims. Compared with the previous 6 months, post-exclusion was associated with increased health care utilization, including a 4.2% increase in number of inpatient visits, and a 2.7% increase in other services (eg, laboratory testing, ambulatory procedures). Esomeprazole prescriptions decreased by 76.5%, whereas overall pharmacy claims for all drug classes (including gastrointestinal drugs) increased by 5.2%. Six-month prescription drug costs decreased by $177/patient (95% confidence interval [CI], $160-$194/patient), whereas costs for total medical services increased by $450/patient (95% CI, $259-$640/patient), resulting in a net increase of $273/patient (95% CI, $137-$408/patient). Total and gastrointestinal-related medical services costs were significantly higher for those switching to another PPI versus those continuing esomeprazole. Inpatient utilization contributed most (44.5%) to increased costs of nongastrointestinal comorbidities. This study provides real-world evidence that formulary exclusions can lead to unintended increases in overall health care utilization and costs that exceed anticipated pharmacy budget savings.

Cost reduction associated with restriction policy on dispensing intravenous esomeprazole in Lebanon.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of the pharmacist on cost through simple implementation of restriction policy on IV drug usage during pharmacy dispensing procedure. SETTING: In-patient floors of a Hospital. METHODS: All medication orders for IV esomeprazole, received at the pharmacy during a 24-month period, were reviewed for appropriate IV route of administration. Two separate time intervals, pre- and post- implementation of restriction dispensing policy, were used to determine cost impact of pharmacy intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The cost difference between pre- and post-restriction periods. RESULTS: During the pre-restriction period, the majority of esomeprazole IV vials were dispensed to patients able to tolerate oral medications and who were admitted to non-intensive care units. The average monthly consumption of IV esomeprazole was 1,439 vials in the pre-restriction period as compared to 346 vials in the post-restriction period. Therefore, the associated cost was reduced by an average of $21,233 per month. CONCLUSION: Even though the clinical role of pharmacy practice in Middle Eastern countries is limited, this study highlighted the impact of the pharmacist on cost through the implementation of restriction policy during dispensing procedure, leading to a cost reduction by four folds.

Relative bioavailability and pharmacokinetic properties of two different enteric formulations of esomeprazole in healthy Bangladeshi male volunteers: An open-label, single-dose, randomized-sequence, two-way crossover study.

BACKGROUND: In Bangladesh, a number of generic oral formulations of esomeprazole are marketed. Study of the relative bioavailability of these generic formulations has yet to be conducted in a Bangladeshi population. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to assess the relative bioavailability and pharmacokinetic properties of 2 formulations (test and reference) of esomeprazole 40 mg. METHODS: This open-label, randomized, 2-way crossover study was conducted in healthy Bangladeshi male subjects in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and International Conference on Harmonisation guidelines. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive the test formulation followed by the reference formulation or vice versa, as a single dose of esomeprazole 40 mg after a 12-hour overnight fast. A washout period of 1 week was maintained between treatments. Following oral administration, blood samples were collected at 0, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2, 2.25, 2.5, 2.75, 3, 3.5, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 12 hour(s) after dosing and analyzed for esomeprazole concentrations using a validated HPLC method. Pharmacokinetic parameters, including C(max), AUC(0-12), and AUC(0-infinity), were determined with a non-compartmental method. The formulations were to be considered bioequivalent if the natural log (ln)-transformed ratios of the pharmacokinetic parameters were within the predetermined bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%, according to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requirement. The within- and between-group differences were examined using ANOVA. Tolerability was assessed by monitoring vital signs and conducting subject interviews regarding adverse events. Interviewers were not blinded to study design. RESULTS: A total of 24 nonsmoking, healthy, Bangladeshi male subjects (mean [SD] age, 22.8 [2.22] years [range, 20-29 years]; weight, 64.7 [6.9] kg [range, 55-79 kg]; height, 1.69 [0.05] m [range, 1.63-1.82 m]; and body mass index, 22.39 [2.16] kg/m(2) [range, 18.99-27.34 kg/m(2)]) were enrolled. From serum data, the mean (SD) values for the test and reference products were as follows: 5.26 (1.57) and 5.54 (2.94) micromol/L for C(max); 2.53 (0.67) and 2.07 (0.65) hours for T(max); 15.74 (6.50) and 16.68 (6.77) micromol/L/h for AUC(0-12); and 17.15 (7.58) and 18.26 (7.31) micromol/L/h for AUC(0-infinity), respectively. The mean T(max) was found to be significantly different between the test and reference formulations (2.53 [0.67] vs 2.07 [0.65] hours, respectively; P < 0.05). The point estimates (90% CI) for the test/reference ratios of the In-transformed AUC(0-infinity) and C(max) were 92.92% (84.02%-102.76%) and 102.36% (85.96%-121.90%), respectively, which were within the FDA-accepted limits for assuming bioequivalence. No adverse events were reported by the volunteers during the study. CONCLUSION: This single-dose study found that the test and reference formulations of esomeprazole 40 mg met the FDA regulatory criteria for assuming bioequivalence in these healthy, fasting Bangladeshi male volunteers. A significant difference was found in T(max) between the 2 formulations. Both formulations were well tolerated in the studied population.

Cost effectiveness of high-dose intravenous esomeprazole for peptic ulcer bleeding.

Peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) is a serious and sometimes fatal condition. The outcome of PUB strongly depends on the risk of rebleeding. A recent multinational placebo-controlled clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00251979) showed that high-dose intravenous (IV) esomeprazole, when administered after successful endoscopic haemostasis in patients with PUB, is effective in preventing rebleeding. From a policy perspective it is important to assess the cost efficacy of this benefit so as to enable clinicians and payers to make an informed decision regarding the management of PUB. Using a decision-tree model, we compared the cost efficacy of high-dose IV esomeprazole versus an approach of no-IV proton pump inhibitor for prevention of rebleeding in patients with PUB. The model adopted a 30-day time horizon and the perspective of third-party payers in the USA and Europe. The main efficacy variable was the number of averted rebleedings. Healthcare resource utilization costs (physician fees, hospitalizations, surgeries, pharmacotherapies) relevant for the management of PUB were also determined. Data for unit costs (prices) were primarily taken from official governmental sources, and data for other model assumptions were retrieved from the original clinical trial and the literature. After successful endoscopic haemostasis, patients received either high-dose IV esomeprazole (80 mg infusion over 30 min, then 8 mg/hour for 71.5 hours) or no-IV esomeprazole treatment, with both groups receiving oral esomeprazole 40 mg once daily from days 4 to 30. Rebleed rates at 30 days were 7.7% and 13.6%, respectively, for the high-dose IV esomeprazole and no-IV esomeprazole treatment groups (equating to a number needed to treat of 17 in order to prevent one additional patient from rebleeding). In the US setting, the average cost per patient for the high-dose IV esomeprazole strategy was $US14 290 compared with $US14 239 for the no-IV esomeprazole strategy (year 2007 values). For the European setting, Sweden and Spain were used as examples. In the Swedish setting the corresponding respective figures were Swedish kronor (SEK)67 862 ($US9220 at average 2006 interbank exchange rates) and SEK67 807 ($US9212) [year 2006 values]. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $US866 and SEK938 ($US127), respectively, per averted rebleed when using IV esomeprazole. For the Spanish setting, the high-dose IV esomeprazole strategy was dominant (more effective and less costly than the no-IV esomeprazole strategy) [year 2008 values]. All results appeared robust to univariate/threshold sensitivity analysis, with high-dose IV esomeprazole becoming dominant with small variations in assumptions in the US and Swedish settings, while remaining a dominant approach in the Spanish scenario across a broad range of values. Sensitivity variables with prespecified ranges included lengths of stay and per diem assumptions, rebleeding rates and, in some cases, professional fees. In patients with PUB, high-dose IV esomeprazole after successful endoscopic haemostasis appears to improve outcomes at a modest increase in costs relative to a no-IV esomeprazole strategy from the US and Swedish third-party payer perspective. Whereas, in the Spanish setting, the high-dose IV esomeprazole strategy appeared dominant, being more effective and less costly.

Cost analysis of long-term treatment of patients with symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with esomeprazole on-demand treatment or esomeprazole continuous treatment: an open, randomized, multicenter study in Switzerland.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the difference in direct medical costs between on-demand (OD) treatment with esomeprazole (E) 20 mg and continuous (C) treatment with E 20 mg q.d. from a clinical practice view in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms. METHODS: This open, randomized study (ONE: on-demand Nexium evaluation) compared two long-term management options with E 20 mg in endoscopically uninvestigated patients seeking primary care for GERD symptoms who demonstrated complete relief of symptoms after an initial treatment of 4 weeks with E 40 mg. Data on consumed quantities of all cost items were collected in the study, while data on prices during the time of study were collected separately. The analysis was done from a societal perspective. RESULTS: Forty-nine percent (484 of 991) of patients randomized to the OD regimen and 46% (420 of 913) of the patients in the C group had at least one contact with the investigator that would have occurred nonprotocol-driven. The difference of the adjusted mean direct medical costs between the treatment groups was CHF 88.72 (95% confidence interval: CHF 41.34-153.95) in favor of the OD treatment strategy (Wilcoxon rank-sum test: P < 0.0001). Adjusted direct nonmedical costs and productivity loss were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The adjusted direct medical costs of a 6-month OD treatment with esomeprazole 20 mg in uninvestigated patients with symptoms of GERD were significantly lower compared with a continuous treatment with E 20 mg once a day. The OD therapy represents a cost-saving alternative to the continuous treatment strategy with E.

[Antiplatelet therapy after aspirin-induced upper gastrointestinal bleeding]. / Platehemmerbehandling ved tidligere gastrointestinal blødning forårsaket av acetylsalisylsyre.

It is common practice to replace aspirin with clopidogrel in patients with gastrointestinal intolerance to aspirin. Recent studies suggest that a combination of aspirin and a proton pump inhibitor is a better alternative for these patients. The CAPRIE and CURE studies have not shown any clinically relevant difference in effect between aspirin and clopidogrel. The incidence of bleeding is also similar when aspirin is used in doses < 160 mg. A recent study by Chan et al. concluded that a combination of aspirin and esomeprazole is superior to clopidogrel in the prevention of recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding. Using aspirin and a proton pump inhibitor is also the least expensive alternative.

Atypical symptoms of GORD in Belgium: epidemiological features, current management and open label treatment with 40 mg esomeprazole for one month.

UNLABELLED: Frequency of atypical symptoms in patients suffering from gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) is not well known, and the optimal management of such symptoms has not been well established. Our aims were to set up an observatory of these atypical symptoms of GORD in Belgium and to study the efficacy of one month treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Gastroenterologists participating in this observational survey were asked to register every new outpatient with symptoms of GORD during a period of 20 consecutive working days. All patients who reported predominant presence of atypical manifestations of GORD were documented and characterized more in detail. In patients with dominant chest pain or ENT symptoms, a treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg daily during 4 weeks was proposed. RESULTS: 90 gastroenterologists included 2864 patients consulting for symptoms suggestive of GORD, including 776 (27.1%) with dominant atypical symptoms. Endoscopy (performed in 2800 patients) showed significantly less oesophagitis in atypical than in typical GORD patients (68% vs. 81.1%; P < 0.0001). Management of atypical GORD patients appeared to be very heterogeneous. Overall 516/776 patients were included in the open phase of treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg, but data for analysis are only available in 228 patients. After one month, symptoms had disappeared in 57.1% and significantly improved in 26.6%. CONCLUSION: Atypical GORD represents a large number of consultations in gastroenterology in Belgium. It is associated with less endoscopic lesions than typical GORD. Its management is heterogeneous reflecting the lack of guidelines on this topic. Response rate after esomeprazole 40 mg for one month in this open uncontrolled trial was high. This result warrants confirmation in a placebo-controlled trial.

[Long-term treatment of patients with symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease comparing costs and efficacy over 6 months of treatment with Nexium On-Demand Treatment or Nexium continuous treatment. An open, randomised multi-center study]. / Wirksamkeit und Kosten einer kontinuierlichen Langzeit- behandlung mit Esomeprazol versus einer Anwendung bei Bedarf bei symptomatischen Reflux-Patienten in der Praxis ohne endoskopische Abklärung-die ONE Studie (On-demand Nexium Evaluation).

This open, randomized study (ONE: On-demand Nexium Evaluation) compared the two long-term management options with esomeprazole 20 mg--continuous daily or on-demand treatment--in endoscopically uninvestigated patients seeking primary care for symptoms suggestive of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) who demonstrated complete relief of symptoms after four weeks of initial treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg. In total 1904 patients were randomized. During 26 weeks 913 patients received continuous daily therapy with esomeprazole 20 mg, once daily, while 991 patients were treated with esomeprazole 20 mg on-demand. The continuous therapy offered slightly better relief of the symptom heartburn, however esomeprazole 20 mg taken on-demand was associated with lower direct medical costs. Esomeprazole was generally well tolerated.

Quality of life in acute and maintenance treatment of non-erosive and mild erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Quality of life has been assessed in a large, multicentre randomized, open label study. AIM: To evaluate the economic and clinical consequences of two different maintenance treatment modalities, administered to 6017 gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients at 451 gastroenterological centres in Italy. METHODS: Adult gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients received, at enrolment, an acute treatment of esomeprazole 40 mg/day for 4 weeks and, if successfully treated, were randomized into two maintenance treatment strategies: esomeprazole 20 mg/day or esomeprazole on demand for 6 months. A baseline endoscopy allowed the exclusion of grade II-IV oesophagitis according to Savary-Miller's classification. Burden of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease was measured at baseline by the generic questionnaire Short-Form 36 and by a disease specific instrument, quality of life in reflux and dyspepsia (QOLRAD), also administered at start and conclusion of maintenance period. Investigators were required to collect patient judgement about the degree of satisfaction with treatment effect on heartburn, with a 7-point scale. RESULTS: A comparison between Short-Form 36 scores and the normative source of the Italian general population suggested that symptomatic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients experience a worse quality of life than the general population. At the end of the 4-week treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg all (QOLRAD) dimensions showed a statistically significant (P < 0.0001) and clinically meaningful improvement. Satisfaction level towards treatment was reported high in the total enrolled population after acute treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg/day (96.2% satisfied and 64.4% very satisfied). A statistically significant difference in (QOLRAD) scores was registered at the end of maintenance phase in favour of the continuous regimen, nevertheless the size of this difference was very small in all dimensions; similarly, the proportion of patients very satisfied was slightly higher in the continuous treatment arm (64.5%) than in the on-demand arm (59.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease can significantly impair health-related quality of life and esomeprazole therapy allows immediate relief in the acute phase of the disease. Quality of life improvement was maintained during the 6-month follow-up with a slight difference in term of quality of life in reflux and dyspepsia scores and patients' satisfaction in favour of the continuous treatment strategy.

Six-month management of patients following treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms -- a Norwegian randomized, prospective study comparing the costs and effectiveness of esomeprazole and ranitidine treatment strategies in a general medical practitioners setting.

This study assesses the difference in direct medical costs between on-demand treatment with esomeprazole 20 mg, continuous treatment with esomeprazole 20 mg once-daily and continuous treatment with ranitidine 150 mg twice-daily to prevent symptomatic relapse in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease over 26 weeks. Two hundred eighty-one GP clinics in Norway enrolled 2156 patients to an open, randomized, parallel group, Norwegian society perspective study during 2000-2001. The total direct medical costs of each strategy were 171.9 Euros for on-demand esomeprazole (n = 634), 221.6 Euros for ranitidine (n = 610) and 248.8 Euros for continuous esomeprazole (n = 658). The total costs for on-demand and continuous esomeprazole treatment and ranitidine treatment were 221.5, 286.5 and 295.8 Euros, respectively. The highest proportion of costs was because of the study medication cost in each strategy. The on-demand and continuous treatment strategies with esomeprazole were found to be cost-effective, compared with ranitidine.

Costs and efficacy of three different esomeprazole treatment strategies for long-term management of gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms in primary care.

BACKGROUND: A prospective, open, randomized multi-centre study with parallel group design was conducted in 155 general practice clinics, and included 1357 endoscopically uninvestigated patients with symptoms suggestive of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. AIM: To assess the differences in direct medical costs between a patient-controlled on-demand treatment strategy with esomeprazole, 20 mg daily, and general practitioner-controlled intermittent treatment strategies with esomeprazole, 40 mg daily, for either 2 or 4 weeks. Secondary objectives were to measure other costs, total costs, patient satisfaction and time to first relapse. METHODS: The primary cost analysis was carried out as a cost minimization analysis, comparing the direct medical costs in patients allocated to on-demand treatment vs. those in patients allocated to either of the intermittent treatment strategies. RESULTS: The mean direct medical costs were 182, 221 and 195 euros for patient-controlled on-demand treatment and 2 weeks and 4 weeks of general practitioner-controlled intermittent treatment, respectively, showing no statistically significant difference. The comparable mean total costs were 211, 344 and 300 euros, i.e. significantly lower for patients treated on-demand compared with either of the general practitioner-controlled intermittent treatment strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The mean total costs, but not the mean direct medical costs, were higher in general practitioner-controlled intermittent treatment strategies with esomeprazole compared with a patient-controlled on-demand treatment strategy.