Disease-specific cost savings of treating nighttime versus daytime gastroesophageal reflux disease in an employed population.

OBJECTIVE: The extent to which proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) can offset direct medical costs by reducing symptoms related to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in order to improve work productivity is not well understood. This study aimed to evaluate the economic impact of treating GERD with PPIs versus no treatment, from an employer's perspective. STUDY DESIGN: An economic model was developed to simulate symptom reduction and breakthrough symptoms as well as associated costs over 1 year among a population of 100,000 with a 20% GERD prevalence rate. Medical costs, including GERD-related office visits, hospitalisations and procedures, were delineated by symptom severity. Indirect costs represented the monetised work productivity loss. PPI treatment costs $2/day (standard dose). RESULTS: The GERD burden was substantial ($62,500,000). Treatment yielded $32,600,000 in savings ($1,630 saved/patient/year), mostly from reducing indirect costs. Treatment produced greater savings among nighttime GERD patients throughout the PPI cost range ($1-$5/day). Savings dropped if the price of standard doses of PPI exceeded $3.92/day for the treatment of daytime GERD patients.

Intravenous pantoprazole as initial treatment in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and a history of erosive esophagitis: a randomized clinical trial.

We sought to evaluate safety and efficacy of IV pantoprazole when used as initial therapy in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and a history of erosive esophagitis (EE) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel-group study. Patients were randomized to 7 days of once-daily IV or oral pantoprazole (40 mg) or placebo. Efficacy variables included maximal acid output, basal acid output, and changes from baseline in frequency/severity of GERD symptoms, and frequency of antacid usage. Seventy-eight patients were randomized (n=26/27/25 [IV/oral/placebo]). Mean maximal acid output was 8.4, 6.3, and 20.9 mEq/h for IV or oral pantoprazole, and placebo, respectively. For pantoprazole versus placebo, maximal and basal acid output were significantly lower (P<.001) and there was a numerical trend toward improved GERD and antacid usage. Both treatments were well tolerated. In conclusion, IV/oral pantoprazole were similarly effective in suppressing basal and pentagastrin-stimulated gastric acid secretion in GERD patients with a history of EE.

Inhibition of pentagastrin-stimulated gastric acid secretion by pantoprazole and omeprazole in healthy adults.

Our objective was to compare the onset and duration of a single dose of pantoprazole or omeprazole on maximally stimulated gastric acid secretion. This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study involved 36 healthy adults and utilized continuous pentagastrin infusion to stimulate acid secretion after administration of pantoprazole, 40 mg, omeprazole, 20 mg, or placebo. Gastric aspirates were collected over 24 hr and analyzed for volume, pH, and hydrogen ion concentration, and gastric acid outputs (GAO) were calculated. Comparison between GAO and intragastric pH was performed. Pantoprazole resulted in significantly greater inhibition of GAO than omeprazole. Mean cumulative 24-hr GAO was 164 +/- 130 mEq for pantoprazole versus 283 +/- 159 mEq for omeprazole (P = 0.031). Pantoprazole patients reached and maintained GAO levels below the 10-mEq/hr threshold at 5.7 hr, whereas omeprazole patients never reached this threshold. We conclude that pantoprazole significantly suppressed gastric acid secretion compared to omeprazole. Comparisons between pH and GAO showed that GAO was a more appropriate measure of gastric acid secretion than intragastric pH.