Electroacupuncture plus standard of care for managing refractory functional dyspepsia: protocol of a pragmatic trial with economic evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: This trial proposes to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of electroacupuncture (EA) plus on-demand gastrocaine with waiting list for EA plus on-demand gastrocaine in providing symptom relief and quality-of-life improvement among patients with functional dyspepsia (FD). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a single-centre, pragmatic, randomised parallel-group, superiority trial comparing the outcomes of (1) EA plus on-demand gastrocaine group and (2) waiting list to EA plus on-demand gastrocaine group. 132 (66/arm) endoscopically confirmed, Helicobacter pylori-negative patients with FD will be recruited. Enrolled patients will respectively be receiving (1) 20 sessions of EA over 10 weeks plus on-demand gastrocaine; or (2) on-demand gastrocaine and being nominated on to a waiting list for EA, which entitles them 20 sessions of EA over 10 weeks after 12 weeks of waiting. The primary outcome will be the between-group difference in proportion of patients achieving adequate relief of symptoms over 12 weeks. The secondary outcomes will include patient-reported change in global symptoms and individual symptoms, Nepean Dyspepsia Index, Nutrient Drink Test, 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9), and 7-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD7). Adverse events will be assessed formally. Results on direct medical costs and on the EuroQol (EQ-5D) questionnaire will also be used to assess cost-effectiveness. Analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle using appropriate univariate and multivariate methods. A mixed model analysis taking into account missing data of these outcomes will be performed. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed using established approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is supported by the Health and Medical Research Fund, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China. It has been approved by the Joint Chinese University of Hong Kong - New Territories East Cluster Clinical Research Ethics Committee. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and be disseminated in international conference. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR-IPC-15007109; Pre-result.

The efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of hydrotalcite versus esomeprazole in on-demand therapy of NERD: A multicenter, randomized, open-label study in China.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate whether hydrotalcite was comparable to esomeprazole, a proton pump inhibitor, in on-demand therapy for non-erosive reflux disease (NERD). METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, open-label clinical trial with initial and on-demand therapy. Patients who had complete symptom relief in the initial therapy were randomized to either hydrotalcite or esomeprazole in the on-demand therapy. The percentage of patients who quit on-demand therapy in the two groups and the cost-effectiveness of the treatment were evaluated as primary end points. The rate of symptom relief and the improvement of symptom score for initial therapy and the weekly average symptom score and weekly average number of days on treatment for on-demand therapy were evaluated as secondary end points. RESULTS: In total, 398 patients were recruited in the initial therapy group, among whom 253 were included in on-demand therapy, with 127 patients in the hydrotalcite group and the remaining 126 in the esomeprazole group. 14 (11.0%) patients in the hydrotalcite group and six (4.8%) in the esomeprazole group quit the on-demand therapy due to unsatisfactory symptom control (P = 0.065). Cost-effectiveness calculated as the ratio of the cost of hydrotalcite to that of esomeprazole (per person/day) was 35.3% in the on-demand therapy. Similar number of patients achieved symptom relief in both groups. CONCLUSION: Hydrotalcite is a good option of on-demand therapy for NERD patients due to its cost-effectiveness and speed of action.

Impact of non-traditional phosphate binders and cinacalcet on haemodialysis patient biochemistry, pill burden and cost.

AIM: The Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) commenced cost subsidization for haemodialysis patients of sevelamer in December 2007, cinacalcet in July 2008 and lanthanum in May 2009. To determine the impact of PBS listing of these medications, we performed a single centre cross-sectional, longitudinal study. METHODS: Dialysis parameters and biochemistry were prospectively collected at 6 monthly intervals for all prevalent haemodialysis patients from October 2007 to April 2010. Medications prescribed to manage chronic kidney disease mineral and bone disorder were recorded. Univariate regression analysis was undertaken for each variable against time. RESULTS: Patient numbers ranged from 87 to 114 in each period. At baseline, mean age was 68.8 ± 14.3 years, 71% male, 15.1 ± 3.5 haemodialysis hours/week and urea reduction ratio 71.9 ± 9.8%. These variables were unchanged over time. The use of sevelamer, cinacalcet and lanthanum increased (P < 0.001). There was a decrease in the use of aluminium- and calcium-based phosphate binders (P < 0.001) but no change in the use of magnesium based phosphate binders (P = 0.09) or calcitriol (P = 0.11). Serum phosphate (P = 0.13) and parathyroid hormone (PTH) (P = 0.87) were unchanged. Mean 'bone pill' burden fell from 60.3/week to 51.9/week (P = 0.02). Mean pill cost increased from Australian dollars (AUD) 12.85/patient per week to AUD 59.85/patient per week (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The PBS subsidization of sevelamer, cinacalcet and lanthanum has changed prescribing patterns, although serum phosphate and PTH remain unchanged. These changes have been at an additional cost of AUD 2444/patient per year. Data to address clinical end-points of mortality and hospitalization is needed to determine if the cost of these newer agents is warranted.