Direct costs for nonsurgical management of Chronic Pancreatitis in a tertiary care teaching hospital.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a leading cause of hospitalization among gastrointestinal diseases resulting in considerable financial burden to patients. However the direct costs for nonsurgical management in CP remains unexplored. METHODS: A cross sectional study was carried out (2011-14) in the Department of Gastroenterology, Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, India. Demographic and clinical data on laboratory investigations, interventions and follow up were obtained from the medical records department. Item costs were derived from the hospital electronic billing section. Cost was expressed as median annual cost per patient. RESULTS: 65 (male 48; 73.8%) patients were included. Their median age was 31 (range 12-68) years. The annual median (IQR) total cost per patient was INR 88,892 (70,550.5-116,004); [USD 1410(1119-1841); € 1155(916-1507)], comprising of INR 61,089 (39,102.5-90,360.5) [USD 970 (621-1434); € 793(508-1174)] for outpatient management and INR 32,450 (11,016-46,958) [USD 515 (175-745); €421(143-610)] for hospitalization. 69.5% of the treatment cost was attributed to outpatient treatment. Drugs contributed to 54%, hospitalization incurred 30.5%, investigations 12% and professional fees (3.5%) of the total cost. Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) cost contributed to three-quarters of drug therapy. Use of rabeprazole as against pantoprazole reduced the overall annual cost of therapy by 4%. CONCLUSIONS: This study depicts the first nonsurgical management of accrued direct costs associated with CP due to expensive medications. Due to the high cost for PERT, its usefulness needs proper validation by cost benefit analysis.

Modeling the cost-effectiveness of ilaprazole versus omeprazole for the treatment of newly diagnosed duodenal ulcer patients in China.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 10 mg ilaprazole once-daily vs 20 mg omeprazole once-daily to treat newly-diagnosed duodenal ulcer patients in China. METHODS: A decision tree model was constructed and the treatment impact was projected up to 1 year. The CYP2C19 polymorphism distribution in the Chinese population, the respective cure rates in the CYP2C19 genotype sub-groups, the impact of Duodenal Ulcer (DU) on utility value and drug-related side-effect data were obtained from the literature. The total costs of medications were calculated to estimate the treatment costs based on current drug retail prices in China. Expert surveys were conducted when published data were not available. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to gauge the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Ilaprazole, when compared with omeprazole, achieved a better overall clinical efficacy. For the overall population, ilaprazole achieved an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ¥132 056 per QALY gained. This is less than the WHO recommended threshold of 3-times the average GDP per capita in China (2014). Furthermore, sub-group analysis showed that ilaprazole is cost-effective in every province in CYP2C19 hetEM patients and in the most developed provinces in CYP2C19 homEM patients. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that the results are robust with 97% probability that ilaprozole is considered cost-effective when a threshold of 3-times China's average GDP per capita is considered. LIMITATION: This study didn't have the data of ilaprazole combined with Hp eradication therapy. Caution should be taken when extrapolating these findings to DU patients with an Hp eradication therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness analysis results demonstrated that ilaprazole would be considered a cost-effective therapy, compared with omeprazole, in Chinese DU patients based on the efficacy projections in various CYP2C19 polymorphism types.

Is the use of esomeprazole in gastroesophageal reflux disease a cost-effective option in Poland?

OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of therapy of gastroesophageal reflux disease with esomeprazole and other proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in Poland. MATERIALS & METHODS: Studies comparing esomeprazole with other PPIs in the treatment of erosive esophagitis, non-erosive reflux disease and gastroesophageal reflux disease maintenance therapy were systematically reviewed. 9 randomized clinical trials were selected, meta-analyses were conducted. Cost data derived from Polish Ministry of Health and Pharmacies in Wroclaw. RESULTS: In the treatment of erosive esophagitis esomeprazole was significantly more effective than other PPIs. Both for 4- and 8-week therapy respective incremental cost-effectiveness ratio values were acceptably low. Differences in effectiveness of non-erosive reflux disease therapy were not significant. The replacement of pantoprazole 20 mg with more effective esomeprazole 20 mg in the 6-month maintenance therapy was associated with a substantially high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

BUDGET IMPACT ANALYSIS OF USING OMEPRAZOLE IMMEDIATE-RELEASE ORAL SUSPENSION IN REPLACE OF INTRAVENOUS PANTOPRAZOLE IN CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to estimate the financial consequence of using omeprazole immediate-release (IR) oral suspension versus pantoprazole intravenous infusion for preventing stress-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients from the perspective of the health care system. METHODS: An Excel-based model was developed to compare the cost of prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding early after intensive care admission using the current intravenous (IV) pantoprazole formulation versus omeprazole IR oral suspension. Total costs included the cost of acid suppressive drugs and related clinical outcomes. Inputs were obtained from a local clinical trial, the Ministry of Health database, insurance organizations, hospital and pharmacy registries, the relevant literature, and expert opinion. The robustness of the input data was investigated by one-way sensitivity analysis. The model was developed based on the results of a randomized control trial (RCT), in which experimental and control groups received omeprazole and pantoprazole, respectively. RESULTS: According to the proposed model, the cost of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding prevention using pantoprazole IV was US$ 950,000 while US$ 750,000 was spent on receiving omeprazole oral suspension. These costs led to the annual cost-saving of almost US$ 200,000 (US$4 per member, per month) for the health care system. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, a budget impact analysis was performed to assess the financial consequences of using omeprazole IR oral suspension in place of pantoprazole IV for prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The better preventive effect of omeprazole IR oral suspension when compared with conventional therapy using pantoprazole IV was the major reason for the final comparative budgetary savings.

Proton pump inhibitor dose-related healing rate of artificial ulcers after endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Two studies have reported on the superiority of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) compared with a histamine-2-receptor antagonist for the treatment of artificial ulcers after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), but the optimal dose of PPI remains to be defined. The aim of this study was to evaluate the possibility of reducing the dose of PPI. The authors thus compared 30 mg (standard-dose) and 15 mg (half-dose) lansoprazole in terms of ulcer healing, prevention of bleeding and quality of life. METHODS: 91 patients with gastric mucosal neoplasm were enrolled. All patients who underwent ESD were administered lansoprazole 30 mg daily during the first week, after which they were randomly assigned to either the standard-dose or half-dose group. RESULTS: One patient in each group developed hematemesis. The stage of ulcers, ulcer reduction ratios and scores on the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale did not differ at 28 and 56 days. The costs of PPI for the half-dose group and standard-dose group were 7,326.5 and 11,698.4 JPY, respectively, i.e. a difference of 471.9 JPY. CONCLUSIONS: A reduced dose of PPI after 1 week of ESD was equivalent in treatment performance to the standard dose and cheaper.

Prevalencia de nueva hemorragia por úlcera péptica en pacientes tratados con inhibidores de la bomba de protones por vía intravenosa / Prevalence of rebleeding from peptic ulcer in patients treated with proton pump inhibitors

Fundamento y objetivo: El objetivo de este estudio es la evaluación de la prevalencia de resangrado por úlcera péptica comparando pacientes que habían recibido omeprazol frente a pantoprazol por vía intravenosa y estudiar los costes derivados de cada tratamiento. Pacientes y métodos: estudio observacional y retrospectivo. Se recogió información sobre el sexo y la edad de los pacientes, el diagnóstico de la hemorragia digestiva alta (HDA) según la clasificación de Forrest, el tipo de inhibidor de la bomba de protones (IBP) utilizado por vía intravenosa y la pauta de tratamiento, presencia o no de resangrado, mortalidad y datos referentes a los costes sanitarios mediante un modelo farmacoeconómico de coste-efectividad. Resultados: Se incluyó a 807 pacientes, 490 de los cuales (60,7%) recibieron pantoprazol y 317 (39,3%) omeprazol. No hubo diferencias entre la edad media de ambos grupos (61,2 frente a 62,3 años, p=0,544), sexo (el 71% de varones frente al 68,6% de mujeres; p=0,78), porcentaje de enfermos dentro del grado I de Forrest (el 35,1 frente al 42%; p=0,05), en el grado II (el 50,2 frente al 40,4%; p=0,006) y en el grado III (el 14,7 frente al 17,7%; p=0,259). El número de viales por día de tratamiento por vía intravenosa fue significativamente inferior en el grupo de pantoprazol desde el tercer al quinto día, sin diferencias en los dos primeros días y a partir del sexto. Hubo resangrado en el 8,2% de los pacientes tratados con pantoprazol y en el 11,7% de los tratados con omeprazol (p=0,098). Falleció el 2,2% de los pacientes tratados con pantoprazol frente al 2,6% de los tratados con omeprazol (p=0,086). El coste esperado de un paciente tratado con pantoprazol es de 2.188,25€ mientras que con omeprazol es de 3.279,02€ (p<0,001). Conclusiones: Si bien los resultados de la administración de omeprazol frente a pantoprazol por vía intravenosa en pacientes con HDA ulcerosa son similares, este último resulta tener mejor perfil de coste-efectividad (AU)

Background and objective: The aim of this study is to assess the prevalence of peptic ulcer rebleeding by comparing patients who received omeprazole versus pantoprazole i.v. as well as to study the costs of each treatment.Patients and methods: Retrospective and observational study. Information was gathered on sex and age of the patients, the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGB) according to the classification of Forrest, the type of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) i.v. used and the treatment regimen, presence or absence of rebleeding, mortality and data on health costs through a pharmacoeconomic cost-effectiveness analysis. Results: We included 807 patients, 490 of whom (60.7%) received pantoprazole and 317 (39.3%) omeprazole. There was no difference between the average age of both groups, 61.2 years vs 62.3, p=0.544; sex, 71% men vs 68.6%, P=.78; the percentage of patients within Forrest I was 35.1% vs 42%, P=.05, in grade II was 50.2% vs 40.4%, P=.006 and in grade III was 14.7% vs 17.7%, P=.259. The number of vials per day of treatment was significantly lower in the pantoprazole group from the third to fifth day, with no differences in the first two days and the sixth. There was rebleeding in 8.2% of patients treated with pantoprazole and 11.7% with omeprazole, P=.098. 2.2% of patients treated with pantoprazole died vs 2.6% treated with omeprazole, P=.086. The expected cost of a patient treated with pantoprazole was 2188.25€ vs 3279.02€ with omeprazole, P<.001. Conclusions: While the results of the administration of omeprazole vs pantoprazole i.v. in patients with UGB are similar, the latter turns out to have a better cost-effectiveness profile (AU)

[Prevalence of rebleeding from peptic ulcer in patients treated with proton pump inhibitors]. / Prevalencia de nueva hemorragia por úlcera péptica en pacientes tratados con inhibidores de la bomba de protones por vía intravenosa.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the prevalence of peptic ulcer rebleeding by comparing patients who received omeprazole versus pantoprazole i.v. as well as to study the costs of each treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective and observational study. Information was gathered on sex and age of the patients, the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGB) according to the classification of Forrest, the type of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) i.v. used and the treatment regimen, presence or absence of rebleeding, mortality and data on health costs through a pharmacoeconomic cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: We included 807 patients, 490 of whom (60.7%) received pantoprazole and 317 (39.3%) omeprazole. There was no difference between the average age of both groups, 61.2 years vs 62.3, p=0.544; sex, 71% men vs 68.6%, P=.78; the percentage of patients within Forrest I was 35.1% vs 42%, P=.05, in grade II was 50.2% vs 40.4%, P=.006 and in grade III was 14.7% vs 17.7%, P=.259. The number of vials per day of treatment was significantly lower in the pantoprazole group from the third to fifth day, with no differences in the first two days and the sixth. There was rebleeding in 8.2% of patients treated with pantoprazole and 11.7% with omeprazole, P=.098. 2.2% of patients treated with pantoprazole died vs 2.6% treated with omeprazole, P=.086. The expected cost of a patient treated with pantoprazole was 2188.25 euro vs 3279.02 euro with omeprazole, P<.001. CONCLUSIONS: While the results of the administration of omeprazole vs pantoprazole i.v. in patients with UGB are similar, the latter turns out to have a better cost-effectiveness profile.

Costs and risks in the management of patients with gastric acid hypersecretion.

GOALS: To define both risks and costs of optimal care of patients with gastric acid hypersecretion. BACKGROUND: The management of Zollinger-Ellison syndrome and other gastric acid hypersecretory disorders remains challenging. The optimal strategy for follow-up including gastric acid analysis, laboratory studies, and endoscopy is unknown but important given the potential complications from uncontrolled acid secretion. STUDY: Over the last 18 years, patients with gastric acid hypersecretory disorders have been followed prospectively with gastric acid analysis and endoscopy titrating oral lansoprazole and evaluating for complications. Protocol driven charges were calculated using the most recent information available. RESULTS: After 1 year of treatment optimization, 19 of 67 patients had 43 relapses, (once only in 10 patients). Risk markers for relapse included: (1) antrectomy, 67% relapsed versus 21% in unoperated patients; (2) basal acid output >5 mmol/h (risk=5.17); and (3) poor compliance. On treatment, 79% of 58 intact patients (excluding antrectomy) were lesion-free; 11% had only 1 relapse. Thus 90% were well managed with optimized lansoprazole alone. Protocol driven charges exceeded $25,000 the first year and $7000 annually thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: Relapse is infrequent and generally mild with acid secreting status closely monitored. The ideal strategy to balance costs and testing awaits further study.

Rabeprazole: a review of its use in the management of gastric acid-related diseases in adults.

Rabeprazole (Aciphex, Alfence, Pariet) is a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) used for the treatment of adults with conditions requiring a reduction of gastric acid secretion such as erosive or ulcerative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), non-erosive reflux disease (NERD), duodenal and gastric ulcers, and pathological hypersecretory conditions including Zollinger-Ellison syndrome (ZES). It is also used as part of combination therapy for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori, a pathogen frequently implicated in the development of gastric and duodenal ulcers. Rabeprazole has a well established efficacy and safety profile in the treatment of gastric acid-related diseases. Rabeprazole is a useful, well tolerated and cost-effective option for the treatment of GORD, NERD, peptic ulcer and other gastric acid-related diseases (including ZES), and provides an appropriate alternative to other currently available PPIs, with the added benefits of having a consistent efficacy profile and low drug interaction potential due to its predominantly nonenzymatic metabolism.

Increased health costs from mandated Therapeutic Substitution of proton pump inhibitors in British Columbia.

BACKGROUND: In 2003, British Columbia's PharmaCare programme implemented a drug reimbursement policy called Therapeutic Substitution, which required patients with acid-related diseases, primarily gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD), to make a medically unnecessary switch from their prescribed proton pump inhibitor (PPI) to the cheapest available brand name PPI (Pariet, rabeprazole sodium), comprising a different (nongeneric) chemical. AIM: To evaluate the independent effects of PPI Therapeutic Substitution on individual healthcare utilization among those complying with the policy. METHODS: We used the BC Ministry of Health Services' individual-level linked data, allowing isolation of healthcare utilization for the entire population of PPI consumers from 2002 to 2005. RESULTS: After controlling for individual case variation in age, gender and a proxy for pre-existing health status, regression analysis revealed statistically significant greater overall use of PPIs, physician services and hospital services independently associated with patients who complied with Therapeutic Substitution. Over the 3-year period 2003-2005, this represented net healthcare expenditures totalling approximately C$43.51 million (C$9.11 million in total PPI drug expenditures, C$24.65 million for physician services and C$9.75 million for hospital services). CONCLUSION: Medically unnecessary drug switching caused by compliance with Therapeutic Substitution policy appears to be independently associated with higher overall healthcare utilization.

Helicobacter pylori eradication in long-term proton pump inhibitor users is highly cost-effective: economic analysis of the HELPUP trial.

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use is costly and about two-thirds of prescribing is long-term. Although 20-50% of patients may be infected with Helicobacter pylori, eradication is not normal clinical practice. AIM: To establish if H. pylori eradication in long-term PPI users is cost-effective. METHODS: Long-term PPI-using patients (n = 183) testing positive for H. pylori were randomly assigned to true or placebo eradication therapy. Patients provided 2-year resource data, and 1-year symptom severity scores. A within-trial cost effectiveness analysis was conducted from a British health service perspective. RESULTS: Significant reductions in resource use occurred comparing eradication with placebo. After 2 years, PPI prescriptions (full-dose equivalents) fell by 3.9 (P < 0.0001); clinician (GP) consultations by 2.4 (P = 0.0001); upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopies by 14.8% (P = 0.008); clinician GI-related home visits by 19.9% (P = 0.005) and abdominal ultrasound scans fell by 20.3% (P = 0.005). Average net savings/patient were pound93 (95% CI: 33-153) after costs of detection and eradication had been deducted. At 1 year, Leeds Dyspepsia Questionnaire symptoms fell by 3.1 (P = 0.005) and quality-of-life measures improved (EuroQol-5D: 0.089, P = 0.08; visual analogue scale: 5.6, P = 0.002) favouring eradication. CONCLUSION: Helicobacter pylori eradication in infected, long-term PPI users is an economically dominant strategy, significantly reducing overall healthcare costs and symptom severity.

[General practitioners' management of gastroesophageal reflux in France in 2005: a pharmacoeconomic study]. / Etude pharmaco-économique sur la prise en charge du reflux gastro-oesophagien en France en 2005 en médecine générale.

AIMS: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) rank third among drug classes in the amount they cost the French health care system annually (more than a billion euros, i.e., 5.7% of community pharmaceutical expenditures, 50% prescribed for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)). METHODS: Data for a representative sample of patients aged 20 years and older, who visited their GP at least once in 2005 for uncomplicated symptomatic GERD came from the Thales database (1200 representative general practitioners (GP) connected to a computerized network) a. RESULTS: In 2005, 122 571 patients (mean age, 56 years, 45% male, 2.6 consultations for GERD) met the inclusion criteria. Extrapolated to the French population, this sample corresponds to 5.7 million people, i.e., 13% of the adult population who visited a GP during the year. PPIs were prescribed as first-line treatment for GERD in 84% of the consultations. Omeprazole, as a proprietary or generic drug, was prescribed most often (79%) and at a full dose (20mg), while other compounds (lansoprazole, pantoprazole, rabeprazole and esomeprazole) were prescribed at half dose in 64% of cases. The extrapolated annual cost of PPIs reimbursed for this indication was 465 million euros (Meuro) at a mean reimbursement level of 73%. Brand-name omeprazole still accounts for 11% of the total cost reimbursed. Complete replacement of brand-name omeprazole by its generic counterpart would reduce costs by 18.35Meuro (-4.3% reimbursed expenditure). The switch from generic full-dose omeprazole to a half dose of other PPIs would allow a further saving of 2.6 (with lansoprazole) to 13.2 Meuro (with pantoprazole). CONCLUSION: A substantial saving in reimbursed pharmaceutical spending in uncomplicated GERD and full compliance with clinical practice recommendations could be achieved by the substitution of less expensive PPIs.

[Cost comparative analysis of drug therapy for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced gastric ulcer in Japan].

Drug selection for the treatment of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced gastric ulcer was analyzed pharmacoeconomically. Two patterns consisting of continuation of an NSAID plus administration of the prostaglandin (PG) preparation misoprostol (PG model) for 8 weeks and continuation of an NSAID plus administration of the proton-pump inhibitors omeprazole and lansoprazole (PPI model) for 8 weeks were examined. Decision analysis models were created on the basis of reports of clinical studies and epidemiologic studies relating to the drugs and gastric ulcer, and cost-comparative analyses were conducted based on the number of persons who had ulcer healing as health outcomes. Costs were estimated with respect to health expenditures from the third-party payer (public) perspective. In the case of continuation of an NSAID plus administration of the proton-pump inhibitor omeprazole for 8 weeks, the health outcomes improved and costs were reduced in comparison with continuation of an NSAID plus administration of misoprostol, thus making the administration of omeprazole the dominant choice. With continuation of an NSAID plus administration of lansoprazole for 8 weeks, the cost-savings of lansoprazole were inferior to those of misoprostol. The generic omeprazole product was the most cost-saving among the four drugs (misoprostol, original omeprazole product, generic omeprazole product, and lansoprazole) examined.

Cost-effectiveness of proton-pump inhibition before endoscopy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Randomized trials suggest high-dose proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) administered before gastroscopy in suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding downstage bleeding ulcer stigmata. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of this approach. METHODS: A decision model compared high-dose IVPPI initiated while awaiting endoscopy with IVPPI administration on the basis of endoscopic findings. IVPPIs were given to all patients undergoing endoscopic hemostasis for 72 hours thereafter. Once the IV regimen was completed or for patients with low-risk endoscopic lesions, an oral daily PPI was given for the remainder of the time horizon (30 days after endoscopy). The unit of effectiveness was the proportion of patients without rebleeding, representing the denominator of the cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per no rebleeding). Probabilities and costs were derived from the literature and national databases. RESULTS: IVPPIs before endoscopy were both slightly more costly and effective than after gastroscopy in the U.S. and Canadian settings, with cost-effectiveness ratios of US$5048 versus $4933 and CAN$6064 versus $6025 and incremental costs of US$45,673 and CAN$19,832 to prevent one additional rebleeding episode, respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed robust results in the US In Canada, intravenous proton-pump inhibitors (IVPPIs) before endoscopy became more effective and less costly (dominant strategy) when the uncomplicated stay for high-risk patients increased above 6 days or that of low-risk patients decreased below 3 days. CONCLUSIONS: With conservative estimates and high-quality data, IVPPIs given before endoscopy are slightly more effective and costly than no administration. In Canada, this approach becomes dominant as the duration of hospitalization for high-risk ulcer patients increases or that of low-risk ulcer patients decreases.

[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.