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.

The impact of generic substitution on price competition in Finland.

Generic substitution by pharmacists was introduced in April 2003 in Finnish pharmaceutical markets. This article examines the impact of generic substitution on price development. This study examined all of the 2,100 substitutable drugs in Finland. The impact of generic substitution on price competition was significant. The average price of substitutable drugs decreased by more than 10%. However, the price development was uneven; some prices increased whereas others decreased by more than 50%. The most important factors that influenced the price development were the number of competitors, whether the drug was originator or generic and the width of the price band.

[Cost-effectiveness analysis for the treatment of non-erosive reflux disease].

Non-erosive reflux disease(NERD) is a common condition and acid-suppressing agents are the mainstay of treatment. A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing a PPI, lansoprazole (LPZ) and a H2RA, ranitidine (RAN) for the treatment of NERD in Japan was performed using a decision analysis. The time period studied was one month and payer or patient' s perspective was considered. Efficacy data were estimated from a randomized clinical trial. Expected days without symptom (healthy days) were 20 for LPZ 15 mg/day and 16 for RAN 300 mg/day. Direct costs were 4,750 yen for LPZ and 4,358 yen for RAN. Cost-effectiveness ratio (direct costs/healthy days) was 238 yen for LPZ and 272 yen for RAN. Considering the results from a large-scale survey of GERD patients in Japan, the slightly higher price of LPZ was outweighed by its greater efficacy, also from the patient's willingness to pay perspective. Lansoprazole was superior to ranitidine with regard to both efficacy and cost-effectiveness and therefore is the preferred therapeutic agent for treatment of NERD.

Pharmacoeconomic comparison of Helicobacter pylori eradication regimens.

BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori is the most important etiologic agent for development of peptic ulcer, chronic gastritis and gastric carcinomas. It is now well established that H. pylori eradication treatment is more cost-effective than acid suppressing therapies alone for the treatment of peptic ulcer disease. However, the comparative cost-effectiveness of various H. pylori eradication regimens is still not clear. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to make a pharmacoeconomic comparison of different H. pylori eradication regimens in patients with peptic ulcer disease or chronic gastritis, using real-world cost and effectiveness data. SETTING: Istanbul University Hospital and Marmara University Hospital. METHOD: A total of 75 patients diagnosed as H. pylori (+) by endoscopy were randomized to receive one of the seven H. pylori treatment protocols. These protocols were as follows: (LAC) = 'lansoprazole 30 mg bid + amoxicillin 1 g bid + clarithromycin 500 mg bid' for 7 days and (OCM) = 'omeprazole 20 mg bid + clarithromycin 250 mg bid + metronidazole 500 mg bid'; (OAM) = 'omeprazole 40 mg qd + amoxicillin 500 mg tid + metronidazole 500 mg tid'; (MARB) = 'metronidazole 250 mg tid + amoxicillin 500 mg qid + ranitidine 300 mg hs + bismuth 300 mg qid'; (OAC) = omeprazole 20 mg bid + amoxicillin 1 g bid + clarithromycin 500 mg bid'; (OCA) = omeprazole 40 mg bid + clarithromycin 500 mg bid + amoxicillin 1 g bid'; (OAB) = 'omeprazole 20 mg bid + amoxicillin 500 mg tid + bismuth 300 mg qid' each for 14 days. Only direct costs were included in the analysis. Effectiveness was measured in terms of "successful eradication". The cost-effectiveness ratios of the regimens were calculated using these effectiveness and cost data. The perspective of the study was assumed as the Government's perspective. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Cost-effectiveness ratios of eradication regimens. RESULTS: MARB and OCA regimens were found to be more cost-effective than the other treatment regimens. The eradication rates and cost-effectiveness ratios calculated for these protocols were 90% (158.7 euros) for MARB and 90% (195.8 euros) for OCA regimen. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the importance of using local pharmacoeconomic data. Analyses such as this give decision-makers the tools to choose a better treatment option which is both highly effective yet and has a low cost.

Impact of Helicobacter pylori eradication on dyspepsia, health resource use, and quality of life in the Bristol helicobacter project: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of a community based Helicobacter pylori screening and eradication programme on the incidence of dyspepsia, resource use, and quality of life, including a cost consequences analysis. DESIGN: H pylori screening programme followed by randomised placebo controlled trial of eradication. SETTING: Seven general practices in southwest England. PARTICIPANTS: 10,537 unselected people aged 20-59 years were screened for H pylori infection (13C urea breath test); 1558 of the 1636 participants who tested positive were randomised to H pylori eradication treatment or placebo, and 1539 (99%) were followed up for two years. INTERVENTION: Ranitidine bismuth citrate 400 mg and clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily for two weeks or placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary care consultation rates for dyspepsia (defined as epigastric pain) two years after randomisation, with secondary outcomes of dyspepsia symptoms, resource use, NHS costs, and quality of life. RESULTS: In the eradication group, 35% fewer participants consulted for dyspepsia over two years compared with the placebo group (55/787 v 78/771; odds ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.94; P = 0.021; number needed to treat 30) and 29% fewer participants had regular symptoms (odds ratio 0.71, 0.56 to 0.90; P = 0.05). NHS costs were 84.70 pounds sterling (74.90 pounds sterling to 93.91 pounds sterling) greater per participant in the eradication group over two years, of which 83.40 pounds sterling (146 dollars; 121 euro) was the cost of eradication treatment. No difference in quality of life existed between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Community screening and eradication of H pylori is feasible in the general population and led to significant reductions in the number of people who consulted for dyspepsia and had symptoms two years after treatment. These benefits have to be balanced against the costs of eradication treatment, so a targeted eradication strategy in dyspeptic patients may be preferable.

"Proton-pump inhibitor-first" strategy versus "step-up" strategy for the acute treatment of reflux esophagitis: a cost-effectiveness analysis in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common condition, and acid-suppressing agents are the mainstays of treatment. For the acute medical management of GERD, two different strategies can be proposed: either the most effective therapy, i.e., proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), can be given first, or histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) can be attempted first (the "step-up" approach). METHODS: A clinical decision analysis comparing the PPI-first strategy and the H2RA-first "step-up" strategy for the acute treatment of reflux esophagitis in Japan was performed, using a Markov chain approach. RESULTS: The PPI-first strategy was consistently superior to the step-up strategy with regard to clinical outcomes for the patient and with regard to cost-effectiveness (direct cost per patient to achieve clinical success). This superiority was robust within the plausible range of probabilities according to the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The PPI-first strategy is superior to the H2RA-first "step-up" strategy with regard to both efficacy and cost-effectiveness and therefore, the PPI-first strategy is the preferred therapeutic approach for the acute medical treatment of reflux esophagitis.

Drug costs developments after patent expiry of enalapril, fluoxetine and ranitidine: a study conducted for the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: In order to increase price competition, government regulations focus on controlling drug costs. Drug costs after patent expiry are an area of particular interest because the substitution of branded medication with generics represents an opportunity for lowering drug costs. However, drug costs may not decrease after patent expiry, because of a lack of price competition and different national pricing systems. AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the trends in the use of generics after patent expiry for enalapril, fluoxetine and ranitidine and the subsequent changes, if any, in the costs of these medications. METHODS: A drug-utilisation study was performed using data from a large sample of Dutch pharmacies. Both volumes (measured as defined daily doses [DDD] per 1000 population) as well as drug costs (calculated per DDD) prior to and after patent expiry were calculated. Costs per DDD were compared using trend-line analysis. In addition, the relative market shares of the different trade channels (branded, parallel imported and generic) were compared before and after patent expiry. RESULTS: The costs per DDD decreased for all three drugs and, as expected, these costs decrease more rapidly after patent expiry. Significant differences in the trend lines were found for enalapril and fluoxetine. CONCLUSIONS: Despite relatively high reimbursement prices for generics in the Netherlands, this example from the Dutch pharmaceutical market demonstrates the benefit of generic substitution for containing pharmaceutical costs, which contrasts with concerns raised by the Dutch government.

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.

A randomized trial comparing omeprazole, ranitidine, cisapride, or placebo in helicobacter pylori negative, primary care patients with dyspepsia: the CADET-HN Study.

BACKGROUND: The management of Helicobacter pylori negative patients with dyspepsia in primary care has not been studied in placebo-controlled studies. METHODS: H. pylori negative patients with dyspepsia symptoms of at least moderate severity (> or =4 on a seven-point Likert scale) were recruited from 35 centers. Patients were randomized to a 4-wk treatment of omeprazole 20 mg od, ranitidine 150 mg bid, cisapride 20 mg bid, or placebo, followed by on-demand therapy for an additional 5 months. Treatment success was defined as no or minimal symptoms (score < or = 2 out of 7), and was assessed after 4 wk and at 6 months. RESULTS: Five hundred and twelve patients were randomized and included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. At 4 wk, success rates (95% CI) were: omeprazole 51% (69/135; 43-60%), ranitidine 36% (50/139, 28-44%), cisapride 31% (32/105, 22-39%), and placebo 23% (31/133, 16-31%). Omeprazole was significantly better than all other treatments (p < 0.05). The proportion of patients who were responders at 4 wk and at 6 months was significantly greater for those receiving omeprazole 31% (42/135, 23-39%) compared with cisapride 13% (14/105, 7-20%), and placebo 14% (18/133, 8-20%) (p= 0.001), but not ranitidine 21% (29/139, 14-27%) (p= 0.053). The mean number of on-demand study tablets consumed and rescue antacid used was comparable across groups. Economic analysis showed a trade-off between superior efficacy and increased cost between omeprazole and ranitidine. CONCLUSION: Treatment with omeprazole provides superior symptom relief compared to ranitidine, cisapride, and placebo in the treatment of H. pylori negative primary care dyspepsia patients.

Impact of the Minimum Pricing Policy and introduction of brand (generic) substitution into the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in Australia.

PURPOSE: To describe the effects of introducing the Minimum Pricing Policy (MPP) and generic (brand) substitution in 1990 and 1994 respectively on the dispensing of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) prescriptions both at the aggregate and individual patient level. METHODS: The relative proportion of prescriptions with a brand premium and those at benchmark was examined 4 years after introduction of the MPP and again 5 years later after generic substitution by pharmacists was permitted. To determine the impact of a price signal at the individual level, case studies involving a patient tracking methodology were conducted on two drugs (fluoxetine and ranitidine) that received a brand premium. RESULTS: From a zero base when the MPP was introduced in 1990, there were 5.4 million prescriptions (17%) dispensed for benchmark products 4 years later in 1994. At this stage generic (brand) substitution by pharmacists was then permitted and the market share of benchmark brands increased to 45% (25.2 million) by 1999. In the patient tracking studies, a significantly lower proportion of patients was still taking the premium brand of fluoxetine 3 months after the introduction of a price signal compared with patients taking paroxetine which did not have a generic competitor. This was also the case for the premium brand of ranitidine when compared to famotidine. The size of the price signal also had a marked effect on dispensing behaviour with the drug with the larger premium (fluoxetine) showing a significantly greater switch away from the premium brand to the benchmark product. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction in 1990 of the Minimum Pricing Policy without allowing generic substitution had a relatively small impact on the selection of medicines within the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. However the effect of generic substitution at the pharmacist level, which was introduced in December 1994, resulted in a marked increase in the percentage of eligible PBS items dispensed at benchmark. Case studies showed a larger premium resulted in a greater shift of patients from drugs with a brand premium to the benchmark alternative.

A practice-based approach for converting from proton pump inhibitors to less costly therapy.

CONTEXT: Projected cost for lansoprazole, the formulary proton pump inhibitor (PPI) at our institution, was $1.8 million in 1999. While some patients require PPI therapy, many could control their symptoms with a histamine H2-receptor antagonist blocker (H2 blocker) at a much lower cost. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a practice-based approach to converting patients from PPIs to H2 blockers. DESIGN: Before-after study. SETTING: Portland Veterans Affairs Primary Care Clinics. INTERVENTION: We developed guidelines and educated clinicians about the use of PPIs and H2 blockers. To help physicians convert appropriate patients from PPIs to H2 blockers, we gave them a list of their patients receiving PPIs, form letters for patients explaining the conversion, and structured prescription forms. Patient lists and e-mail reminders, as well as feedback on institutional performance, were sent to clinicians during the intervention period. OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of PPI and H2 prescriptions per enrollee and pharmacy costs. RESULTS: The average number of PPI prescriptions per enrollee at our institution decreased from 0.39 in the 9 months before the intervention to 0.27 in the 9 months after the intervention. The associated pharmacy costs decreased from an average of $43 to $28 per enrollee per quarter, a difference of $15 or a savings of $80,000 per quarter. Accounting for the decrease in medication prices during the study, this difference was $11 per patient per quarter, corresponding to a savings of about $60,000 per quarter. With respect to the conversion process, more than 70% of clinicians felt the intervention had a big impact on how they prescribed PPIs and H2 blockers. Eighty-two percent of clinicians converted patients from PPIs to H2 blockers during clinic time; 56% did so during administrative time. Overall, more clinicians considered the intervention to be helpful rather than a hassle. CONCLUSIONS: The number of PPI prescriptions decreased during the intervention and was sustained at least three quarters afterward. This low-intensity, practice-based intervention may serve as a model for other health care systems.

Genéricos y precios de referencia, rangode precios y fuentes de información / Generic medicines and Reference Pricing System, price rating and information

El consumo de las Especialidades Farmacéuticas Genéricas (EFG) en España en el Sistema Nacional de Salud no se puede precisar, ya que no existen datos fiables publicados de los mismos, solo declaraciones y notas de prensa. Se podría decir que el consumo de EFG en España, estimado en un 2 por ciento de la facturación del Sistema Nacional de Salud en 2000, ha crecido pero es todavía demasiado bajo comparado con el consumo en la Unión Europea y EE.UU. Se estudia un grupo de seis principios activos (10 por ciento de los existentes) en forma de EFG, seleccionados entre los principios activos mas consumidos en envases en 1999 en el Sistema Nacional de Salud. La información obtenida en fuentes de información accesibles, sobre las EFG registradas y comercializadas en España de este grupo, no es coincidente y es difícil de obtener. De este grupo, una selección aleatoria de formatos que tienen un conjunto homogéneo (alprazolam comprimidos, amoxicilina sobres, captopril comprimidos, diclofenaco supositorios, omeprazol cápsulas y ranitidina comprimidos), presenta una variabilidad de precios expresado en coste de una Dosis Diaria Definida que puede llegar a ser hasta tres veces mayor el más alto que el más bajo (rango 1,2 - 3 veces).En seis conjuntos homogéneos seleccionados aleatoriamente entre los anteriores, existe un rango amplio de los precios (24 por ciento - 89 por ciento, precio más bajo con relación al precio de referencia), lo que indica que no se aplica estrictamente las reglas del mercado (precio de referencia el más barato). El Proceso de puesta en marcha de los precios de referencia ha sido largo; el número de conjuntos homogéneos ha sido menor que las posibilidades existentes; y el sistema de establecimiento del precio de referencia ha sido restrictivo (precio de referencia no es el más barato) (AU)

Helicobacter pylori-positive duodenal ulcer: three-day antibiotic eradication regimen.

BACKGROUND: The most widely used treatments for ulcer healing and Helicobacter pylori eradication consist of a 1-2 week regimen of a proton pump inhibitor plus two or three antimicrobials. AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, cost, and tolerance of a three-day regimen with three antibiotics vs. a 10-day treatment with a proton pump inhibitor or vs. a ranitidine bismuth citrate triple therapy. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-one patients with endoscopically-proven H. pylori-positive duodenal ulcers were recruited to the study. Recruited patients were assigned to one of the following four regimens: (I) omeprazole 40 mg o.m. plus amoxycillin 1 g b.d. and clarithromycin 500 mg b.d. for 10 days (OAC: 55 patients); (ii) omeprazole 40 mg o.m. on days 1-5, plus amoxycillin 1 g b.d., clarithromycin 500 mg b.d. and metronidazole 500 mg b.d. on days 3-5 (OACM: 56 patients); (iii) ranitidine bismuth citrate 400 mg b.d. plus amoxycillin 1 g b.d. and clarithromycin 500 mg b.d. for 10 days (RAC: 54 patients); (iv) ranitidine bismuth citrate 400 mg b.d. on days 1-5, plus amoxycillin 1 g b.d., clarithromycin 500 mg b.d. and metronidazole 500 mg b.d. on days 3-5 (RACM: 56 patients). Fisher's exact test was used to compare data regarding healing and eradication in the four groups. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat eradication and ulcer healing rates for the RACM regimen were 95% and 98%, respectively. Statistically significant differences were observed, relating to the eradication and healing of ulcers, between RACM and either the RAC or OAC regimens. CONCLUSION: The three-day antibiotic therapy with amoxycillin, clarithromycin and metronidazole in addition to ranitidine bismuth citrate is a very effective anti-H. pylori regimen.

Effectiveness and costs of omeprazole vs ranitidine for treatment of symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease in primary care clinics in West Virginia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical, health-related quality of life (HRQL), and medical cost outcomes in patients with symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) receiving omeprazole sodium or ranitidine hydrochloride treatment. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, open-label, medical effectiveness trial conducted in 5 university-based family medicine clinics. Two hundred sixty-eight patients with GERD were recruited and randomly assigned to omeprazole sodium, 20 mg once daily, or ranitidine hydrochloride, 150 mg twice daily, for up to 6 months. Main outcome assessments included the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) Reflux score, Psychological General Well-Being Index, and Short-Form-36 Health Survey administered at baseline and 2, 4, 12, and 24 weeks. Medical resource use and cost data were collected. RESULTS: More omeprazole-treated patients reported improved heartburn resolution at 2 weeks (49.0% vs 33.3%; P=.007) and 4 weeks (58.6% vs 35.0%; P<.001) compared with ranitidine-treated patients. The GSRS Reflux scores across 3 months showed overall differences between omeprazole (mean, 2.67) and ranitidine (mean, 2.95) groups (P=.04). Mean total 6-month medical costs were $915 lower ($8371 vs $9286; P=.64), and no difference in mean outpatient medical costs ($1198 vs $1158; P=.76) were observed in the omeprazole group compared with the ranitidine group. A post hoc secondary analysis showed that, at 12 and 24 weeks, patients treated with omeprazole for 8 weeks or more reported greater heartburn resolution (ie, 24 [43%] of 56 patients at both intervals) than patients treated with ranitidine for 8 weeks or more (12 [24%] and 13 [26%] of 50 patients, respectively; P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: Ranitidine and omeprazole were both effective at improving heartburn symptoms; however, omeprazole provided greater resolution of heartburn symptoms at 2 and 4 weeks. Despite omeprazole's higher acquisition cost, there were no significant differences in total or outpatient costs between groups.

Test and treat strategies for Helicobacter pylori in uninvestigated dyspepsia: a Canadian economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recognition of the pivotal role of Helicobacter pylori in the pathogenesis of peptic ulcer disease has revolutionized primary care approaches to dyspepsia. Decision analysis was used to compare the cost effectiveness of empirical ranitidine with a test and treat strategy using either H pylori serology or the 13carbon-urea breath test (13C-UBT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cohort of patients under age 50 years presenting with uninvestigated dyspepsia was evaluated. Three initial strategies were compared with respect to direct medical costs and effectiveness in curing H pylori-related ulcers - empirical ranitidine, H pylori serology and UBT. A one-year time horizon and third-party payer perspective were adopted in a Canadian health care setting. RESULTS: UBT was more costly than either serology or ranitidine but was the most effective strategy and required the fewest endoscopies. No strategy demonstrated dominance over another in the base case. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of serology versus ranitidine was $118/cure, and sensitivity analysis induced dominance of serology in several plausible scenarios. The baseline ICER of UBT versus serology was $885/cure but showed substantial variation in sensitivity analysis. Each ICER was highly sensitive to variation in the cost of the tests themselves. At a serology cost of $25, UBT became dominant when its cost fell to $39. CONCLUSIONS: In low risk patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia, testing for H pylori using serology appears to be economically attractive. 13C-UBT may be a cost effective alternative to serology if local conditions closely approximate the model parameters. Future changes in the costs of serology and 13C-UBT may determine the optimal approach.

Costs and benefits of a test-and-treat strategy in Helicobacter pylori-infected subjects: a prospective intervention study in general practice.

OBJECTIVE: To identify health outcomes and costs/savings of a Helicobacter pylori test-and-treat strategy in patients using acid suppressants chronically. DESIGN: Prospective intervention study. Patients were tested for H. pylori infection and treated with 14 days of ranitidine bismuth citrate (RBC) 400 mg (b.i.d.) and clarithromycin 500 mg if infected. Cure was determined after six months. SETTING: General practice. PARTICIPANTS: Patients using acid suppressants chronically were identified by a computer search; 184 patients gave written consent and were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Serology, symptom questionnaire, medication history, quality of life determination, costs/savings. RESULTS: Out of 184 patients, 85 (46%) had positive serology. A cure rate of 61/80 (76%) was achieved. The intervention group showed significant symptom relief. Benefits were evident in patients with ulcer disease but also in patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia. Quality of life improved for cured patients in the intervention group. No improvements for dyspeptic symptoms or quality of life occurred in the H. pylori-negative group. After six months, significant savings for medication use had occurred in treated patients diagnosed as ulcer disease or non-ulcer dyspepsia. Savings on drug use and doctor visits equalize with costs for tests and antibiotics after nine months. Although less, costs for drugs also decreased significantly in the H. pylori-negative group. Therefore, for the study population, costs and savings are even after 6.5 months. CONCLUSIONS: A test-and-treat strategy for H. pylori, systematically applied at the population level in patients using acid suppressants chronically, results in significant health benefits and economic savings within 1 year of follow-up.

Cost effectiveness of rabeprazole versus generic ranitidine for symptom resolution in patients with erosive esophagitis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost effectiveness of rabeprazole (RAB) and ranitidine (RAN) in acute and maintenance therapy for erosive esophagitis using symptom response, rather than endoscopic healing, as the clinical outcome. STUDY DESIGN: Decision analysis was used to model the cost effectiveness of competing therapies based on the results of clinical trials of RAB versus RAN and estimates from the medical literature. METHODS: The model's base case scenario compared brand-name RAB (estimated average wholesale price) with generic RAN (25% of the average wholesale price of brand-name RAN). Medical costs for hospitalizations, procedures, and office visits reflected 1998 Medicare payments. The 1-year maintenance model accounted for drug-class switching and symptomatic, rather than endoscopic, recurrences. Effectiveness was reported as the percentage of patients in whom a symptomatic recurrence was prevented. The cost per symptomatic recurrence prevented was reported as an average and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: The per-patient cost of RAB therapy was higher than that of RAN therapy ($2020 vs $1917); RAB therapy, however, was more effective than RAN therapy in preventing symptomatic recurrences (74% vs 41%). The average cost-effectiveness ratio was lower for RAB therapy than for RAN therapy ($2748 per symptomatic recurrence prevented vs $4719 per symptomatic recurrence prevented). The cost of preventing one additional symptomatic recurrence with RAB rather than RAN was $313 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio). Sensitivity analysis conducted on key clinical and cost variables supported the robustness of the decision model. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates that management of esophagitis with RAB is more effective, and may be more cost effective, than management with generic RAN, despite RAB's higher per-unit cost.