Alkalinizing Agents: A Review of Prescription, Over-the-Counter, and Medical Food Supplements.

Introduction: Kidney stones affect 1 in every 11 people in the United States each year. There is a significant high recurrence rate without a stone prevention protocol. Alkali citrate is beneficial in decreasing stone recurrence, but because of the cost and gastrointestinal side effects there is a low adherence rate. This study aims to serve as a review of some of the most commonly used alkalizing over-the-counter supplements that are advertised to prevent and treat kidney stones. Methods: Data were gathered by a comprehensive online literature search and company inquiries for kidney stone prevention supplements. An additional informal poll of the authors selected supplements that are most commonly taken by their patients. A total of eight supplements were evaluated for cost, alkali equivalent provided, dosing, and regulatory information. Results: Eight of the most commonly used supplements were reviewed with a focus on alkalizing agents. Information reviewed revealed dosing recommendations resulting in decreased citrate alkali equivalents per day compared with prescription-strength potassium citrate. Cost, peer-reviewed study results, and regulatory data were reviewed, tabulated, and analyzed. Cost per alkali equivalent was substantially decreased for each supplement compared with the prescribed drug. All supplements were found to be readily available online. Conclusion: Over-the-counter alkalizing agents are available to patients and may be an appropriate alternative to cost-prohibitive potassium citrate when treating urolithiasis patients. Additional testing will be necessary in the future to determine the efficacy of these supplements in the treatment and prevention of urinary stone disease.

Incremental cost-utility of sevelamer relative to calcium carbonate for treatment of hyperphosphatemia among pre-dialysis chronic kidney disease patients.

BACKGROUND: Sevelamer is an alternative to calcium carbonate for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia among non-dialysis dependent patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although some studies show that it may reduce mortality and delay the onset of dialysis when compared to calcium carbonate, it is also significantly more expensive. Prior studies looking at the incremental cost-effectiveness of sevelamer versus calcium carbonate in pre-dialysis patients are based on data from a single clinical trial. The goal of our study is to use a wider range of clinical data to achieve a more contemporary and robust cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: We used a Markov model to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for treatment with sevelamer versus calcium carbonate. The model simulated transitions among three health states (CKD not requiring dialysis, end-stage renal disease, and death). Data on transition probabilities and utilities were obtained from the published literature. Costs were calculated from a third party payer perspective and included medication, hospitalization, and dialysis. Sensitivity analyses were also run to encompass a wide range of assumptions about the dose, costs, and effectiveness of sevelamer. RESULTS: Over a lifetime, the average cost per patient treated with sevelamer is S$180,724. The estimated cost for patients treated with calcium carbonate is S$152,988. A patient treated with sevelamer gains, on average, 6.34 QALYs relative to no treatment, whereas a patient taking calcium carbonate gains 5.81 QALYs. Therefore, sevelamer produces an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of S$51,756 per QALY gained relative to calcium carbonate. CONCLUSION: Based on established benchmarks for cost-effectiveness, sevelamer is cost effective relative to calcium carbonate for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia among patients with chronic kidney disease initially not on dialysis.

Sevelamer is cost effective versus calcium carbonate for the first-line treatment of hyperphosphatemia in new patients to hemodialysis: a patient-level economic evaluation of the INDEPENDENT-HD study.

BACKGROUND: The recent multicenter, randomized, open-label INDEPENDENT study demonstrated that sevelamer improves survival in new to hemodialysis (HD) patients compared with calcium carbonate. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of sevelamer versus calcium carbonate for patients new to HD, using patient-level data from the INDEPENDENT study. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING AND POPULATION: Adult patients new to HD in Italy. MODEL, PERSPECTIVE, TIMEFRAME: A patient-level cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Servizio Sanitario Nazionale, Italy's national health service. The analysis was conducted for a 3-year time horizon. The cost of dialysis was excluded from the base case analysis. INTERVENTION: Sevelamer was compared to calcium carbonate. OUTCOMES: Total life years (LYs), total costs, and the incremental cost per LY gained were calculated. Bootstrapping was used to estimate confidence intervals around LYs, costs, and cost-effectiveness and to calculate the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. RESULTS: Sevelamer was associated with a gain of 0.26 in LYs compared to calcium carbonate, over the 3-year time horizon. Total drug costs were €3,282 higher for sevelamer versus calcium carbonate, while total hospitalization costs were €2,020 lower for sevelamer versus calcium carbonate. The total incremental cost of sevelamer versus calcium carbonate was €1,262, resulting in a cost per LY gained of €4,897. The bootstrap analysis demonstrated that sevelamer was cost effective compared with calcium carbonate in 99.4 % of 10,000 bootstrap replicates, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per LY gained. LIMITATIONS: Data on hospitalizations was taken from a post hoc retrospective chart review of the patients included in the INDEPENDENT study. Patient quality of life or health utility was not included in the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Sevelamer is a cost-effective alternative to calcium carbonate for the first-line treatment of hyperphosphatemia in new to HD patients in Italy.

[Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of treatment in patients with Helicobacter pylori-associated diseases].

AIM: To estimate the pharmacoeconomic parameters of treatment in patients with Helicobacter pylori-associated diseases when using 6 eradication therapy (ET) regimens. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The investigation enrolled a total of 231 patients who received anti-Helicobacter pylori therapy according to the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle, including 229 patients who met the protocol requirements, i.e. who completed the prescribed per-protocol (PP) treatment: 106 patients with duodenal bulb ulcer disease, 2 with gastric ulcer, 90 with erosive gastritis, and 31 patients with non-atrophic gastritis. In an outpatient setting, the patients received one of the 6 ET regimens: OAC, RBMA, RBCA, EBCA, sequential OACM therapy, and modified sequential OACMB therapy (O--omeprazole; A--amoxicillin; C--clarithromycin; B--bismuth tripotassium dicitrate, R--rabeprazole; M--metronidazole; E--esomeprazole). Treatment costs were calculated only from direct drug expenditures. The effective cost coefficient (K(eff)) was determined from the cost/ treatment efficiency ratio: K(eff) = cos/eff, where the cost was the average total costs; the eff was efficiency (%). RESULTS: The modified sequential OACMB therapy has proven to be more cost-efficient than the other regimens as it has a lower K(eff), (14). The RBMA regimens can overcome an 80% ET barrier (82.4%); however, in this case the K(eff) is 21.5. the sequential OACM therapy can also overcome an 80% ET barrier (84.8%); the K(eff) being 10.8. Incorporation of the bismuth preparation can achieve a more noticeable therapeutic effect up to 95.4%. The EBCA regimen has turned out to be most expensive with the highest K(eff) of 36.9. The RBCA regimen is most effective with the least K(eff) of 29; the therapeutic effect is 96.7%. CONCLUSION: The clinical cost-efficiency of ET is enhanced by the incorporation of the bismuth preparation for the treatment of patients with H. pylori-associated diseases. The modified sequential OACMB therapy can overcome resistance to clarithromycin and metronidazole with a good cost-efficiency.

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.

Product standardisation as a tool to control prescribing costs - a case study of alginate liquid preparations.

INTRODUCTION: Product standardisation involves promoting the prescribing of pre-selected products within a particular category across a healthcare region and is designed to improve patient safety by promoting continuity of medicine use across the primary/secondary care interface, in addition to cost containment without compromising clinical care (i.e. maintaining safety and efficacy). OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of product standardisation on the prescribing of compound alginate preparations within primary care in Northern Ireland. METHODS: Data were obtained on alginate prescribing from the Northern Ireland Central Services Agency (Prescription Pricing Branch), covering a period of 43 months. Two standardisation promotion interventions were carried out at months 18 and 33. In addition to conventional statistical analyses, a simple interrupted time series analysis approach, using graphical interpretation, was used to facilitate interpretation of the data. RESULTS: There was a significant increase in the prescribed share of the preferred alginate product in each of the four health boards in Northern Ireland and a decrease in the cost per Defined Daily Dose for alginate liquid preparations overall. Compliance with the standardisation policy was, however, incomplete and was influenced to a marked degree by the activities of the pharmaceutical industry. The overall economic impact of the prescribing changes during the study was small (3.1%). CONCLUSION: The findings suggested that product standardisation significantly influenced the prescribing pattern for compound alginate liquid preparations within primary care across Northern Ireland.

Effect of the Medicare Part D coverage gap on medication use among patients with hypertension and hyperlipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies of the Medicare Part D coverage gap are limited in generalizability and scope. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of the coverage gap on drugs used for asymptomatic (antihypertensive and lipid-lowering drugs) and symptomatic (pain relievers, acid suppressants, and antidepressants) conditions in elderly patients with hypertension and hyperlipidemia. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study using pre-post design and contemporaneous control group. SETTING: Medicare claims files from 2005 and 2006 for 5% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries. PATIENTS: Part D plan enrollees with hypertension or hyperlipidemia aged 65 years or older who had no coverage, generic-only coverage, or both brand-name and generic coverage during the gap in 2006. Patients who were fully eligible for the low-income subsidy served as the control group. MEASUREMENTS: Monthly 30-day supply prescriptions available, medication adherence, and continuous medication gaps of 30 days or more for antihypertensive or lipid-lowering drugs; monthly 30-day supply prescriptions available for pain relievers, acid suppressants, or antidepressants before and after coverage gap entry. RESULTS: Patients with no gap coverage had a decrease in monthly antihypertensive and lipid-lowering drug prescriptions during the coverage gap. Nonadherence also increased in this group (antihypertensives: odds ratio [OR], 1.60 [95% CI, 1.50 to 1.71]; lipid-lowering drugs: OR, 1.59 [CI, 1.50 to 1.68]). The proportion of patients with no gap coverage who had continuous medication gaps in lipid-lowering medication use and antihypertensive use increased by an absolute 7.3% (OR, 1.38 [CI, 1.29 to 1.46]) and 3.2% (OR, 1.35 [CI, 1.25 to 1.45]), respectively, because of the coverage gap. Decreases in use were smaller for pain relievers and antidepressants and larger for acid suppressants in patients with no gap coverage. Patients with generic-only coverage had decreased use of cardiovascular medications but no change in use of drugs for symptomatic conditions. No measures changed in the brand-name and generic coverage groups. Results of sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main findings. LIMITATION: Because this study was nonrandomized, unobserved differences may still exist between study groups. CONCLUSION: The Part D coverage gap was associated with decreased use of medications for hypertension and hyperlipidemia in patients with no gap coverage and generic-only gap coverage. The proposed phasing out of the gap by 2020 will benefit such patients; however, use of low-value medications may also increase. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Penn-Pfizer Alliance and American Heart Association.

A health insurance company-initiated practice support intervention for optimizing acid-suppressing drug prescriptions in primary care.

BACKGROUND: A health insurance-initiated programme to improve cost-effectiveness of acid-suppressing drugs (ASDs). AIM: To evaluate the effect of two different interventions of general practitioner support in reducing drug prescription. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A sequential cluster randomized controlled trial with 90 participating general practitioners in a telephone support (TS) group or practice visit (PV) group. TS group received support in phase-1 (first 6 months), but served as control group in phase-2 (6-12 months period). PV group received no intervention in phase-1, serving as the control group for the TS group, but received support in phase-2. Prescription data were extracted from Agis Health Insurance Database. Outcomes were the proportion of responders to drug reduction and the number of defined daily dose (DDD). Differences in users and DDD were analysed using multilevel regression analysis. RESULTS: At baseline, 3424 patients used ASD chronically (211 DDDs, on average). The difference between TS and control groups among responders was 3.2% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8; 5.6] and relative risk was 1.26 (95% CI: 1.06; 1.51). The difference between PV and control groups was not relevant (0.4%, 95% CI: -1.99; 2.79 and relative risk: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.82; 1.20). The difference in DDD per patient was -3.0 (95% CI: -8.9; 2.9) and -5.82 (95% CI: -12.4; 0.73), respectively. CONCLUSION: This health insurance company-initiated intervention had a moderate effect on ASD prescription. In contrast to TS, PVs did not seem to reduce ASD prescription rates.

Therapeutic and cost effectiveness of proton pump inhibitor regimens for idiopathic or drug-induced peptic ulcer complication.

Peptic ulcer (PU) disease has a high rate of occurrence and recurrence in Korean and the selection of drug for treatment is diverse. In this study, the therapeutical effectiveness of regimens including proton pump inhibitors (PPI) was compared with the single PPI therapy. The clinical data were collected from 1,658 patients having idiopathic or drug-induced PU complication from a Medical Center in Daegu, Korea, and analyzed retrospectively based on the results of endoscopic examination, the drug history and the therapeutic cost depending on drugs used. The comparison of complete healing rate and recurrence rate showed no significant differences between the single PPI groups and the combination group with antacids, prokinetic agent or mucosa protectants. However, the combination therapy of PPI with mucosa protectants gave a slightly better therapeutic outcome than single PPI treatment in gastric ulcer patients. Comparatively, the combination of PPI with antacids significantly reduced the therapeutic effectiveness in duodenal ulcer patients. The analysis of cost-based therapeutic effectiveness reveals that any economic benefits in PU treatment were not gained by the combination of other class of ulcer drugs. Even though the rapidity of healing rate was not considered, it can be concluded that the PPI combination therapy might be not desirable in PU treatment. Particularly triplet or quartet combination therapy in PPI regimen was absolutely economically ineffective therapy in spite of the increase of medication costs.

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.

Medicine prices, availability, and affordability in 36 developing and middle-income countries: a secondary analysis.

BACKGROUND: WHO and Health Action International (HAI) have developed a standardised method for surveying medicine prices, availability, affordability, and price components in low-income and middle-income countries. Here, we present a secondary analysis of medicine availability in 45 national and subnational surveys done using the WHO/HAI methodology. METHODS: Data from 45 WHO/HAI surveys in 36 countries were adjusted for inflation or deflation and purchasing power parity. International reference prices from open international procurements for generic products were used as comparators. Results are presented for 15 medicines included in at least 80% of surveys and four individual medicines. FINDINGS: Average public sector availability of generic medicines ranged from 29.4% to 54.4% across WHO regions. Median government procurement prices for 15 generic medicines were 1.11 times corresponding international reference prices, although purchasing efficiency ranged from 0.09 to 5.37 times international reference prices. Low procurement prices did not always translate into low patient prices. Private sector patients paid 9-25 times international reference prices for lowest-priced generic products and over 20 times international reference prices for originator products across WHO regions. Treatments for acute and chronic illness were largely unaffordable in many countries. In the private sector, wholesale mark-ups ranged from 2% to 380%, whereas retail mark-ups ranged from 10% to 552%. In countries where value added tax was applied to medicines, the amount charged varied from 4% to 15%. INTERPRETATION: Overall, public and private sector prices for originator and generic medicines were substantially higher than would be expected if purchasing and distribution were efficient and mark-ups were reasonable. Policy options such as promoting generic medicines and alternative financing mechanisms are needed to increase availability, reduce prices, and improve affordability.

Users and utilization patterns of over-the-counter acid inhibitors and antacids in The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: General practitioners (GPs) are the first-line physicians who are consulted for upper digestive symptoms. Persons with symptoms may, however, prefer to buy acid inhibitors or antacids in drugstores or pharmacies and bypass a GP. The aim of this work was to study users, reasons for use, and utilization patterns of over-the-counter (OTC) acid inhibitors and antacids in The Netherlands. We also studied factors that were associated with the substitution of OTC acid inhibitors or antacid use for consultation with a GP. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From July 2005 to January 2006, persons buying OTC acid inhibitors or antacids in 12 pharmacies and 4 drugstores were asked to complete a questionnaire. A total of 82/160 (51%) questionnaires were returned. RESULTS: Heartburn was the main symptom for buying an acid inhibitor or antacid. Seventy-one (87%) participants substituted OTC drug use for a GP consultation. The most commonly reported reason was the belief that symptoms were not serious enough to seek medical care. Exploratory analyses showed that substitution was less common in participants with comorbidity, a history of upper gastrointestinal disorder, use of an acid inhibitor or antacid previously prescribed by a physician, alarm symptoms (such as pain and nausea), and with being symptomatic for >4 days/week. CONCLUSIONS: Although the reasons for substitution of OTC acid inhibitor or antacid use for a GP consultation in The Netherlands do not suggest an a priori increased risk of an underlying serious disorder, it may be advisable for staff in drugstores and pharmacies to provide users with information on appropriate use and when to consult a GP.

Effectiveness and costs of implementation strategies to reduce acid suppressive drug prescriptions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of evidence for the effectiveness of implementation strategies aimed at reducing prescriptions for the use of acid suppressive drugs (ASD). METHODS: A systematic review of intervention studies with a design according to research quality criteria and outcomes related to the effect of reduction of ASD medication retrieved from Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Outcome measures were the strategy of intervention, quality of methodology and results of treatment to differences of ASD prescriptions and costs. RESULTS: The intervention varied from a single passive method to multiple active interactions with GPs. Reports of study quality had shortcomings on subjects of data-analysis. Not all outcomes were calculated but if so rction of prescriptions varied from 8% up to 40% and the cost effectiveness was in some cases negative and in others positive. Few studies demonstrated good effects from the interventions to reduce ASD. CONCLUSION: Poor quality of some studies is limiting the evidence for effective interventions. Also it is difficult to compare cost-effectiveness between studies. However, RCT studies demonstrate that active interventions are required to reduce ASD volume. Larger multi-intervention studies are necessary to evaluate the most successful intervention instruments.