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.

Rethinking the laryngopharyngeal reflux treatment algorithm: Evaluating an alternate empiric dosing regimen and considering up-front, pH-impedance, and manometry testing to minimize cost in treating suspect laryngopharyngeal reflux disease.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Empiric proton pump inhibitor (PPI) trials for laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) are common. A majority of the patients respond to acid suppression. This work intends to evaluate once-daily, 40 mg omeprazole and once-nightly, 300 mg ranitidine (QD/QHS) dosing as an alternative regimen, and use this study's cohort to evaluate empiric regimens prescribed for LPR as compared to up-front testing with pH impedance multichannel intraluminal impedance (MII) with dual pH probes and high-resolution manometry (HRM) for potential cost minimization. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort review and cost minimization study. METHODS: A chart review identified patients diagnosed with LPR. All subjects were treated sequentially and outcomes recorded. Initial QD/QHS dosing increased after 3 months to BID if no improvement and ultimately prescribed MII and HRM if they failed BID dosing. Decision tree diagrams were constructed to determine costs of two empiric regimens and up-front MII and HRM. RESULTS: Ninety-seven subjects met the criteria. Responders and nonresponders to empiric therapy were identified. Seventy-two subjects (74%) responded. Forty-eight (67% of responders and 49% of all) improved with QD/QHS dosing. Forty-nine (51%) subjects escalated to BID dosing. Twenty-four subjects (33% of responders and 25% of all) improved on BID therapy. Twenty-five subjects (26%) did not respond to acid suppression. Average weighted cost was $1,897.00 per patient for up-front testing, $3,033.00 for initial BID, and $3,366.00 for initial QD/QHS. CONCLUSIONS: An alternate QD/QHS regimen improved the majority who presented with presumed LPR. Cost estimates demonstrate that the QD/QHS regimen was more expensive than the initial BID high-dose PPI for 6 months. Overall per-patient cost appears less with up-front MII and HRM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 127:S1-S13, 2017.

A one-year economic evaluation of six alternative strategies in the management of uninvestigated upper gastrointestinal symptoms in Canadian primary care.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of initial strategies in managing Canadian patients with uninvestigated upper gastrointestinalsymptoms remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of six management approaches to uninvestigated upper gastrointestinal symptoms in the Canadian setting. METHODS: The present study analyzed data from four randomized trials assessing homogeneous and complementary populations of Canadian patients with uninvestigated upper gastrointestinal symptoms with comparable outcomes. Symptom-free months, qualityadjusted life-years (QALYs) and direct costs in Canadian dollars of two management approaches based on the Canadian Dyspepsia Working Group (CanDys) Clinical Management Tool, and four additional strategies (two empirical antisecretory agents, and two prompt endoscopy) were examined and compared. Prevalence data, probabilities, utilities and costs were included in a Markov model, while sensitivity analysis used Monte Carlo simulations. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were determined. RESULTS: Empirical omeprazole cost $226 per QALY ($49 per symptom-free month) per patient. CanDys omeprazole and endoscopy approaches were more effective than empirical omeprazole, but more costly. Alternatives using H2-receptor antagonists were less effective than those using a proton pump inhibitor. No significant differences were found for most incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. As willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds rose from $226 to $24,000 per QALY, empirical antisecretory approaches were less likely to be the most costeffective choice, with CanDys omeprazole progressively becoming a more likely option. For WTP values ranging from $24,000 to $70,000 per QALY, the most clinically relevant range, CanDys omeprazole was the most cost-effective strategy (32% to 46% of the time), with prompt endoscopy-proton pump inhibitor favoured at higher WTP values. CONCLUSIONS: Although no strategy was the indisputable cost effective option, CanDys omeprazole may be the strategy of choiceover a clinically relevant range of WTP assumptions in the initial management of Canadian patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia.

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.

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.

Cyclooxygenase-2 selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (etodolac, meloxicam, celecoxib, rofecoxib, etoricoxib, valdecoxib and lumiracoxib) for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (etodolac, meloxicam, celecoxib, rofecoxib, etoricoxib, valdecoxib and lumiracoxib) for osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched up to November 2003. Industry submissions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in 2003 were also reviewed. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and a model-based economic evaluation were undertaken. Meta-analyses were undertaken for each COX-2 selective NSAID compared with placebo and non-selective NSAIDs. The model was designed to run in two forms: the 'full Assessment Group Model (AGM)', which includes an initial drug switching cycle, and the 'simpler AGM', where there is no initial cycle and no opportunity for the patient to switch NSAID. RESULTS: Compared with non-selective NSAIDs, the COX-2 selective NSAIDs were found to be equally as efficacious as the non-selective NSAIDs (although meloxicam was found to be of inferior or equivalent efficacy) and also to be associated with significantly fewer clinical upper gastrointestinal (UGI) events (although relatively small numbers of clinical gastrointestinal (GI) and myocardial infarction (MI) events were reported across trials). Subgroup analyses of clinical and complicated UGI events and MI events in relation to aspirin use, steroid use, prior GI history and Helicobacter pylori status were based on relatively small numbers and were inconclusive. In the RCTs that included direct COX-2 comparisons, the drugs were equally tolerated and of equal efficacy. Trials were of insufficient size and duration to allow comparison of risk of clinical UGI events, complicated UGI events and MIs. One RCT compared COX-2 (celecoxib) with a non-selective NSAID combined with a gastroprotective agent (diclofenac combined with omeprazole); this included arthritis patients who had recently suffered a GI haemorrhage. Although no significant difference in clinical GI events was reported, the number of events was small and more such studies, where patients genuinely need NSAIDs, are required to confirm these data. A second trial showed that rofecoxib was associated with fewer diarrhoea events than a combination of diclofenac and misoprostol (Arthrotec). Previously published cost-effectiveness analyses indicated a wide of range of possible incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained estimates. Using the simpler AGM, with ibuprofen or diclofenac alone as the comparator, all of the COX-2 products are associated with higher costs (i.e. positive incremental costs) and small increases in effectiveness (i.e. positive incremental effectiveness), measured in terms of QALYs. The magnitude of the incremental costs and the incremental effects, and therefore the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, vary considerably across all COX-2 selective NSAIDs. The base-case incremental cost per QALY results for COX-2 selective NSAIDs compared with diclofenac for the simpler model are: celecoxib (low dose) 68,400 pounds; celecoxib (high dose) 151,000 pounds; etodolac (branded) 42,400 pounds; etodolac (generic) 17,700 pounds; etoricoxib 31,300 pounds; lumiracoxib 70,400 pounds; meloxicam (low dose) 10,300 pounds; meloxicam (high dose) 17,800 pounds; rofecoxib 97,400 pounds; and valdecoxib 35,500 pounds. When the simpler AGM was run using ibuprofen or diclofenac combined with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) as the comparator, the results change substantially, with the COX-2 selective NSAIDs looking generally unattractive from a cost-effectiveness point of view (COX-2 selective NSAIDs were dominated by ibuprofen or diclofenac combined with PPI in most cases). This applies both to 'standard' and 'high-risk' arthritis patients defined in terms of previous GI ulcers. The full AGM produced results broadly in line with the simpler model. CONCLUSIONS: The COX-2 selective NSAIDs examined were found to be similar to non-selective NSAIDs for the symptomatic relief of RA and OA and to provide superior GI tolerability (the majority of evidence is in patients with OA). Although COX-2 selective NSAIDs offer protection against serious GI events, the amount of evidence for this protective effect varied considerably across individual drugs. The volume of trial evidence with regard to cardiovascular safety also varied substantially between COX-2 selective NSAIDs. Increased risk of MI compared to non-selective NSAIDs was observed among those drugs with greater volume of evidence in terms of exposure in patient-years. Economic modelling shows a wide range of possible costs per QALY gained in patients with OA and RA. Costs per QALY also varied if individual drugs were used in 'standard' or 'high'-risk patients, the choice of non-selective NSAID comparator and whether that NSAID was combined with a PPI. With reduced costs of PPIs, future primary research needs to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of COX-2 selective NSAIDs relative to non-selective NSAIDs with a PPI. Direct comparisons of different COX-2 selective NSAIDs, using equivalent doses, that compare GI and MI risk are needed. Pragmatic studies that include a wider range of people, including the older age groups with a greater burden of arthritis, are also necessary to inform clinical practice.

Sequential treatment for Helicobacter pylori eradication in duodenal ulcer patients: improving the cost of pharmacotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have shown that Helicobacter pylori eradication rates with standard 7-day triple therapy are unsatisfactory. A novel 10-day sequential treatment regimen recently achieved a significantly higher eradication rate. To improve the pharmacotherapeutic cost, we evaluated whether an acceptable eradication rate could be achieved in peptic ulcer patients by halving the dose of clarithromycin. METHODS: In a prospective, open-label study, 152 duodenal ulcer patients with H. pylori infection, assessed by rapid urease test and histology, were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive either a 10-day sequential treatment comprising rabeprazole 20 mg b.d. plus amoxicillin 1 g b.d. for the first 5 days, followed by rabeprazole 20 mg b.d., clarithromycin 500 mg b.d. and tinidazole 500 mg b.d. for the remaining 5 days (high-dose therapy), or a similar schedule with the clarithromycin doses halved to 250 mg b.d. (low-dose therapy). No further antisecretory drugs were offered. Four to six weeks after therapy, H. pylori eradication and ulcer healing rates were assessed by endoscopy. RESULTS: Similar H. pylori eradication rates were observed following high- and low-dose regimens for both per protocol (97.3% vs. 95.9%; P = N.S.) and intention-to-treat (94.7% vs. 92.2%; P = N.S.) analyses. No major side-effects were reported. At repeat endoscopy, peptic ulcer healing was observed in 93% and 93% of patients following high- and low-dose therapy, respectively. CONCLUSION: The cheaper low-dose sequential regimen may be suggested for H. pylori eradication in duodenal ulcer patients, even without continued proton pump inhibitor therapy after eradication treatment.

The clinical and economic impact of competing management strategies for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common disorder in the primary care setting. Traditional management strategies consist of sequentially intensive therapeutic trials followed by invasive diagnostic testing for nonresponders. A high dose proton pump inhibitor trial (the "proton pump inhibitor test") has been shown to be an accurate diagnostic alternative, and may be an efficient initial approach to patients with GERD symptoms. AIM: To examine the clinical, economic and policy implications of alternative management strategies for GERD. METHODS: Decision analysis was used to calculate the clinical and economic outcomes of competing management strategies. The traditional strategy incorporates sequential therapeutic trials with more intensive therapy ("step-up" approach) followed by sequential invasive diagnostic testing of nonresponders. The "proton pump inhibitor test" strategy includes an initial "proton pump inhibitor test" (7 days of omeprazole; 40 mg AM + 20 mg PM daily) followed by less intensive therapeutic trials in those testing positive ("step-down" approach) with sequential invasive diagnostic testing as needed. Cost estimates were based on Medicare reimbursement and average wholesale drug prices. Probability estimates were derived from a systematic review of the published medical literature. Model results are reported as the average and incremental cost-per-symptom free patient and cost-per-quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. RESULTS: The average cost per patient was 1045 US dollars for the traditional step-up management strategy, compared to 1172 US dollars for the "proton pump inhibitor test" and step-down strategy. The percentage of patients who were symptom-free at 1 year was 50% for the traditional management strategy compared to 75% for the "proton pump inhibitor test" strategy. The "proton pump inhibitor test" strategy results in QALY gains of 0.01-0.05 depending on the utility estimate employed. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the "proton pump inhibitor test" strategy is 510 US dollars per additional symptomatic cure over 1 year, and between 2822-10,160 US dollars per QALY gained. The traditional management strategy resulted in a greater than 5-fold increase in the utilization of upper endoscopy, which was partially offset by a 47% reduction in the use of ambulatory 24-h oesophageal pH monitoring. The reduced effectiveness of the traditional management strategy may be attributed in part to a 118% increase in the use of "high-dose" H2RAs while reducing the use of standard dose proton pump inhibitors by only 42% and "high-dose" proton pump inhibitors by 57%. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this analysis, strategies utilizing the initial PPI test followed by a "step-down" approach may result in improved symptom relief and quality of life over 1 year, and more appropriate utilization of invasive diagnostic testing at a small marginal increase in total costs. These findings warrant a prospective trial comparing these competing management strategies.

Cost effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori eradication therapies in patients with duodenal ulcer. An analysis of triple therapy versus two dual therapy alternatives.

OBJECTIVE: Recent research has focused on eradication therapy as the principal treatment of patients with duodenal ulcers and Helicobacter pylori infection. The aim of this study was to analyse the cost effectiveness of triple therapy versus 2 dual therapies. DESIGN: A health economic evaluation of triple therapy with lansoprazole, amoxicillin and clarithromycin versus 2 dual therapies (lansoprazole or omeprazole, each with amoxicillin) in the eradication of Helicobacter pylori in patients with duodenal ulcers was performed in parallel with a randomised clinical trial. Direct and indirect costs were estimated for 1 year using data elicited from patient questionnaires and from the clinical trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: Despite the initial drug cost for triple therapy being 650 Swedish kronor (SEK; 1996 values) higher, the average total direct cost in this group was only SEK150 to SEK200 higher than in the dual therapy groups. This was a result of fewer outpatient visits and lower drug use after treatment failure in the triple therapy group. Triple therapy had a more favourable cost-effectiveness ratio than the dual therapies. CONCLUSION: In spite of higher initial antimicrobial costs, triple therapy with lansoprazole, amoxicillin and clarithromycin is more cost effective than dual therapy because of a higher eradication rate and greater symptom relief.

Clinical and economic assessment of the omeprazole test in patients with symptoms suggestive of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a trial of a high-dose proton pump inhibitor (the omeprazole test) in detecting gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in patients with heartburn symptoms. DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. PATIENTS AND SETTING: Forty-three consecutive patients with symptoms suggestive of GERD were enrolled at a Veterans Affairs medical center. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Symptom response to the omeprazole test vs placebo in GERD-positive and GERD-negative patients; sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the omeprazole test; and cost per correct diagnosis achieved with the omeprazole test compared with traditional diagnostic strategies. RESULTS: Of 42 patients (98%) who completed the study, 35 (83%) were classified as GERD positive and 7 (17%) as GERD negative. Twenty-eight GERD-positive and 3 GERD-negative patients responded to the omeprazole test, providing a sensitivity of 80.0% (95% confidence interval, 66.7%-93.3%) and a specificity of 57.1% (95% confidence interval, 20.5%-93.8%). Economic analysis revealed that the omeprazole test saves $348 per average patient evaluated, and results in a 64% reduction in the number of upper endoscopies performed and a 53% reduction in the use of pH testing. CONCLUSIONS: The omeprazole test is sensitive and fairly specific for diagnosing GERD in patients with typical GERD symptoms. This strategy could result in significant cost savings and decreased use of invasive diagnostic tests.

Antiulcer drug prescribing in hospital successfully influenced by "immediate concurrent feedback".

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether immediate concurrent feedback (ICF) focused on inpatient omeprazole prescribing achieved more rational and cost-effective antiulcer drug prescribing and usage. METHODS: In a 1400-bed teaching hospital, an audit (by specially trained personnel) was conducted to monitor inpatient prescribing of omeprazole (1) in preference to H2-antagonists and other drugs according to agreed criteria (Helicobacter pylori eradication, severe reflux esophagitis, rapid ulcer healing deemed urgent because of severe symptoms or complications, high-dose steroid therapy of > or =30 mg/day prednisolone) and (2) appropriateness of intravenous dosing (oral route not feasible or contraindicated). After baseline monitoring for 1 month, followed by relevant antiulcer drug therapy education, ICF was instituted for 1 year. This entailed explanatory memoranda requesting a change in prescribing issued to the respective medical teams of patients whose omeprazole prescription did not "conform." The main outcomes of the study were omeprazole prescription numbers per month and the proportion conforming, defined daily doses of antiulcer drugs used and corresponding expenditures, and pertinent antiulcer drug utilization data from 9 other local hospitals. RESULTS: Baseline omeprazole prescribing conformed in 32 of 173 (18%) of the patients compared with 451 of 546 (83%) during institution of ICF (P < 0001; chi2 test). Correspondingly, average overall omeprazole and ranitidine usage (inpatient and outpatient) and expenditure decreased (44% and 45%, respectively); collectively, use of less expensive alternatives increased about 61%. Estimated savings averaged about HK$150,000 ($20,000) per month. No comparable changes in usage were noted in 9 other local hospitals. CONCLUSION: Regarding hospital antiulcer drugs, this ICF strategy was associated with more rational prescribing and usage, and an important saving of resources.

Proton pump inhibitors or histamine-2 receptor antagonists for the prevention of recurrences of erosive reflux esophagitis: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Erosive esophagitis is a recurring condition for which many patients require preventive therapy. If maintenance therapy must be provided, the most cost-effective treatment strategy should be established. We evaluated the costs and benefits associated with three treatment strategies: 1) maintenance therapy with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) strategy, 2) maintenance therapy with a high-dose histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) strategy, and 3) maintenance therapy with a standard-dose H2RA. If patients experience a symptomatic recurrence on the H2RA strategies, they then receive PPI maintenance. METHODS: We used a cost-effectiveness model with a 1-yr time frame; data were obtained from randomized trials of lansoprazole and ranitidine, from case series, and expert opinion. RESULTS: In most situations, the high-dose H2RA strategy is the most costly, yet it is less effective than the PPI strategy. Among the remaining two options, the PPI strategy is more costly and more effective than the standard-dose H2RA strategy, requiring an additional $52-688 per recurrence prevented, depending on drug acquisition costs. The greater the degree to which esophagitis decreases quality of life, the more cost effective is the PPI strategy. For example, with a $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year cost-effectiveness threshold and a market-weighted average of drug costs, the PPI strategy appears cost effective for those patients who report that symptoms of esophagitis cause greater than a 9% decrement in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The high-dose H2RA strategy is not preferred in terms of either costs or benefits. The PPI strategy appears cost effective relative to the standard-dose H2RA strategy in the following situations: when patients are significantly bothered by esophagitis and in institutional settings where the difference in drug costs between PPIs and H2RAs is small.

Cost-effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy in duodenal ulcer disease.

A model analysis applied to Helicobacter pylori eradication found that, following successful healing with omeprazole and H. pylori eradication, virtually all patients were cured and experienced no relapse during the next 5 years. In contrast, almost all of the patients receiving episodic therapy relapsed and, during maintenance therapy with H2-receptor antagonists, most experienced at least one relapse. Although H. pylori eradication initially resulted in higher costs than the alternative therapies, it reduced the risk of recurrence and, for most patients, no future costs were incurred. Even with a worst case scenario, such as an H. pylori eradication rate of only 50%, the H. pylori eradication therapy had a pay-off period of less than 1.3 years compared with maintenance treatment and 3 years compared with episodic treatment. A preliminary analysis also compared the cost-effectiveness of three different H. pylori eradication therapies: omeprazole plus one or two antibiotics, ranitidine plus two antibiotics, and ranitidine plus bismuth triple therapy. The highest eradication rates (in excess of 90%) were achieved using 1-week regimens including omeprazole in combination with either clarithromycin or amoxycillin and a nitroimidazole. These regimens were also shown to be the most cost-effective. As the difference in costs between the therapies is small compared with the savings that can be achieved by successful H. pylori eradication, it is logical that the eradication strategy with the highest eradication rate is the most cost-effective. The model analysis concludes that H. pylori eradication in patients with duodenal ulcer disease is cost-effective in comparison to episodic therapy with omeprazole or maintenance therapy with ranitidine.

Cost and quality effects of treating erosive oesophagitis. A re-evaluation.

The objective of this study was to re-evaluate the clinical and economic effects of common therapies for erosive oesophagitis in the light of a newly approved treatment regimen. A previously constructed 7-month community practice decision analytical model was revised to include the latest published data on efficacy and symptomatic outcomes. The original results of phase I therapy (antacids plus dietary, sleeping and lifestyle changes) alone or combined with ranitidine 150mg bid or omeprazole 20mg od were reassessed by adding new clinical data on the efficacy of and symptomatic response to ranitidine 150mg qid. The same payment data used in the first analysis were applied here as well, with the addition of the US price of ranitidine 150mg qid. The study perspective was that of the payer or insurer. Omeprazole-based therapy remained a dominant strategy for symptomatic care during the 7-month model. It was 14% less costly per patient, led to 23% fewer symptomatic months, and had 21% lower cost per symptom-free month than ranitidine 150mg qid, the next best alternative. Evolving treatment strategies necessitate rapid assessment and reassessment so that clinical practice can remain current, patients can be assured of the best quality, and insurers can be aware of treatment cost and budgetary impact given limited resources in all countries. Only by consistent and continuous re-evaluation of new or changing medical interventions can clinicians and insurers adapt patient management to new scientifically derived results. This is the best manner by which to meet patients' care needs and the clinical needs of practitioners, as well as the financial needs of payers.