The cost-effectiveness and budget impact of intravenous versus oral proton pump inhibitors in peptic ulcer hemorrhage

Intermittent Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy in Low-Risk Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding May Be Significantly Cost-Saving

BACKGROUND

High-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, given either intermittently or continuously for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NV-UGIB), is efficacious. Using intermittent PPI for low-risk patients may be cost-saving. Our objective was to estimate the annual cost savings if all low-risk NV-UGIB patients received intermittent PPI therapy.

METHODS

Patients who presented to hospital in Calgary, Alberta, who received a PPI for NV-UGIB from July 2015 to March 2017 were identified using ICD-10 codes. Patients were stratified into no endoscopy, high-risk, and low-risk lesion groups and further subdivided into no PPI, oral PPI, intermittent intravenous (IV), and continuous IV subgroups. Average length of stay (LOS) in each subgroup and costs were calculated.

RESULTS

We identified 4141 patients with NV-UGIBs, (median age 61, 57.4% male). One-thousand two-hundred and thirty-one low-risk patients received continuous IV PPI, with an average LOS of 6.8 days (95% CI 6.2-7.3) versus 4.9 days (95% CI 3.9-5.9) for intermittent IV patients. If continuous IV PPI patients instead received intermittent IV PPI, 3852 patient days and CAD 11,714,390 (2017 CAD)/year could be saved.

CONCLUSIONS

Using real-world administrative data, we demonstrate that a sizable portion of low-risk patients with NV-UGIB who were given continuous IV PPI if switched to intermittent IV therapy could generate significant potential cost savings.

Quantifying the Value of Introducing an Oral Drug Delivery Option for Edaravone: A Review of Analyses Evaluating the Economic Impact of Oral versus Intravenous Formulations

Background

Drug formulation and route of administration can have an impact on not only patients’ quality of life and disease outcomes but also costs of care. It is essential for decision makers to use appropriate economic modeling methods to guide drug coverage policies and to support patients’ decision-making.

Purpose

To illustrate key cost considerations for decision makers in economic evaluation of innovative oral formulations as alternatives to intravenous medication.

Materials and Methods

A structured literature review was conducted using the PubMed database to examine methods used for quantifying the economic impact of introducing a new oral pharmaceutical formulation as an alternative to intravenous medication. To illustrate the methods described in this review, a cost-minimization analysis was conducted to quantify the impact of introducing an oral formulation of a medication originally developed as an intravenous treatment for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Results

We identified 14 published evaluations of oral and intravenous formulations from 10 countries across a variety of disease areas. The identified studies used cost-effectiveness (n=10), cost-minimization (n=2), and cost-calculation (n=2) modeling approaches. All but one (13/14) reported outcomes from payers’ perspective, while societal perspectives were also incorporated in 3 of the reviewed evaluations. One study estimated costs from a public hospital’s perspective. Only a subset of the identified studies accounted for the effects of safety (n=6) or efficacy (n=8) differences on treatment costs when estimating the costs of a formulation choice. Many studies that omitted these aspects did not include rationales for their decisions.

Conclusion

We found significant design variations in published models that estimated the impact of an additional formulation option on the treatment costs to payers and the society. Models need to be accompanied with clear descriptions on rationales for their time horizons and assumptions on how different formulations may affect healthcare costs from the selected perspectives.

Comparison of Oral versus Intravenous Proton Pump Inhibitors in Preventing Re-bleeding from Peptic Ulcer after Successful Endoscopic Therapy

Introduction Perforation, obstruction, and bleeding remain the most frequently encountered complications of peptic ulcer disease (PUD). Bleeding may be in the form of hematemesis or melena. The treatment of choice in patients with a bleeding peptic ulcer is endoscopic ligation to maintain the hemostatic balance followed by the administration of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). This study focuses on the evaluation and comparison of intravenous (IV) and oral PPIs in terms of prevention of re-bleeding after successful endoscopy for peptic ulcers. Methods A prospective, comparative study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan from January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019. The trial included known cases of PUD admitted with active upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). They were randomly divided into two groups: one received oral pantoprazole and the other was administered IV pantoprazole. The outcomes for both groups were compared. Data was entered and analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 23.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY) Results There were 96 (48%) patients in the IV pantoprazole group and 104 (52%) in the oral group. From 24 hours after the medication onwards, the IV pantoprazole group showed a significant improvement in hemoglobin (Hb) levels (p: 0.01); the group also showed improvement in supine systolic BP at 48 hours (p: 0.04) and in diastolic BP at both 12 and 48 hours as compared to the oral pantoprazole group (p: 0.05). The mean duration of hospital stay, need for blood transfusion and repeat endoscopy, re-bleeding, and mortality rates were similar for both groups (p: >0.05). Conclusion We could not find any statistically significant difference between oral and IV routes of pantoprazole administration in the prevention of rebleeding when used after successful therapeutic endoscopy in patients with bleeding PUDs.

Clipping Over the Scope for Recurrent Peptic Ulcer Bleeding is Cost-Effective as Compared to Standard Therapy: An Initial Assessment

Clipping over the scope (C-OTS) is a novel closure technique used for the treatment of nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding, especially for high-risk lesions. C-OTS devices cost more than clipping through the scope and thermal devices. The high upfront cost of C-OTS may pose a barrier to its use and the cost-effectiveness of C-OTS for peptic ulcer disease bleeding is unknown. Cost-effectiveness studies of C-OTS for peptic ulcer bleeding as both first-line and second-line therapy can provide the current estimate of the conditions in which the use of C-OTS is cost-effective and give insights of the determinants to the cost-effectiveness of C-OTS.

Cost Effectiveness of Biomarker Tests for Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Diarrhea: A Framework for Payers

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Diagnosis of diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D) relies on the Rome IV symptom-based criteria, which are imperfect for separating functional vs organic disease. Biomarker tests for IBS-D might be added to symptom data to allow clinicians to make more accurate and precise diagnoses in a cost-effective manner. We tested the economic consequences of using a range of hypothetical IBS-D biomarkers, and explored at what cost and level of accuracy a biomarker becomes cost effective. We produced a framework for payers to evaluate the return on an investment of implementing IBS-D biomarkers of varying accuracy and cost.

METHODS

We used decision analysis software to evaluate a hypothetical cohort of patients who met Rome IV criteria for IBS-D. We conducted cost-utility and budget impact analyses of 2 competing approaches: usual care or an IBS biomarker-based diagnostic approach. Patients in the usual care group received empiric IBS treatment; non-responders received additional diagnostic tests for organic disease. In the group evaluated with a biomarker test, those with a positive result received IBS treatment before additional diagnostic analyses, whereas patients with a negative result underwent upfront diagnostic testing. Outcomes were incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained (third-party payer perspective) and incremental per-member per-month cost.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year, we found that biomarkers are not cost effective when the biomarker test costs more than $846, even if the test is 100% accurate in detecting IBS-D. In probabilistic analysis using 1,000 simulations, most trials (75% or more) show that the biomarker-based diagnostic approach is cost effective above the following accuracy thresholds: a $100 biomarker test with 51% accuracy, a $200 test with 57% accuracy, a $300 test with 63% accuracy, a $400 test with 69% accuracy, a $500 test with 76% accuracy, a $600 test with 82% accuracy, a $700 test with 89% accuracy, and a $800 test with 94% accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

In decision analysis of a hypothetical cohort of patients who met Rome IV criteria for IBS-D, we identified cost and accuracy thresholds that can guide investigators and payers as they develop, validate, price, and/or reimburse IBS-D biomarker tests for use in everyday clinical practice.

Comparing intravenous and oral proton pump inhibitor therapy for bleeding peptic ulcers following endoscopic management: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The efficacy of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) has been demonstrated for bleeding peptic ulcers but the route of administration remains controversial. Several studies have demonstrated that high-dose oral PPIs are as effective as intravenous PPIs in reducing recurrent bleeding. However, current guidelines recommend intravenous PPIs after endoscopic treatment. Previous data based on numbers that were too small to enable a firm conclusion to be reached suggested that oral and intravenous PPIs had equivalent efficacy. We undertook a meta-analysis to compare oral and intravenous PPIs in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers after endoscopic management.

METHODS

A literature search was undertaken using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, between 1990 and February 2016, to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy of PPIs administered by different routes. Nine RCTs, involving 1036 patients, were analysed. Outcomes were: recurrent bleeding, blood transfusion requirement, duration of hospital stay, a need for repeat endoscopy, surgery and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

There were no differences in the rebleeding rates [odds ratio (OR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60, 1.46; P = 0.77], need for surgery (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.25, 2.40; P = 0.65), need for repeat endoscopy (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39, 1.21; P = 0.19), need for blood transfusion [(MD) -0.03, 95% CI -0.26, 0.19; P = 0.76], duration of hospital stay (MD -0.61, 95% CI -1.45, 0.23; P = 0.16) or 30-day mortality (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.27, 2.43; P = 0.84) according to the route of administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral PPIs represent better value for money, with clinical efficacy equivalent to intravenous PPIs.

A Methodological Review of US Budget-Impact Models for New Drugs

A budget-impact analysis is required by many jurisdictions when adding a new drug to the formulary. However, previous reviews have indicated that adherence to methodological guidelines is variable. In this methodological review, we assess the extent to which US budget-impact analyses for new drugs use recommended practices. We describe recommended practice for seven key elements in the design of a budget-impact analysis. Targeted literature searches for US studies reporting estimates of the budget impact of a new drug were performed and we prepared a summary of how each study addressed the seven key elements. The primary finding from this review is that recommended practice is not followed in many budget-impact analyses. For example, we found that growth in the treated population size and/or changes in disease-related costs expected during the model time horizon for more effective treatments was not included in several analyses for chronic conditions. In addition, all drug-related costs were not captured in the majority of the models. Finally, for most studies, one-way sensitivity and scenario analyses were very limited, and the ranges used in one-way sensitivity analyses were frequently arbitrary percentages rather than being data driven. The conclusions from our review are that changes in population size, disease severity mix, and/or disease-related costs should be properly accounted for to avoid over- or underestimating the budget impact. Since each budget holder might have different perspectives and different values for many of the input parameters, it is also critical for published budget-impact analyses to include extensive sensitivity and scenario analyses based on realistic input values.

Timing or Dosing of Intravenous Proton Pump Inhibitors in Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Has Low Impact on Costs

OBJECTIVES

High-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) post endoscopy are recommended in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), as they improve outcomes of patients with high-risk lesions. Determine the budget impact of using different PPI regimens in treating non-variceal UGIB, including pre- and post-endoscopic use, continuous infusion (high dose), and intermittent bolus (twice daily) dosing.

METHODS

A budget impact analysis using a decision model informed with data from the literature adopting a US third party payer's perspective with a 30-day time horizon was used to determine the total cost per patient (US$2014) presenting with acute UGIB. The base-case employing high-dose pre- and post-endoscopic IV PPI was compared with using only post-endoscopic PPI. For each, continuous or intermittent dosing regimens were assessed with associated incremental costs. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The overall cost per patient is $11,399 when high-dose IV PPIs are initiated before endoscopy. The incremental costs are all inferior in alternate-case scenarios: $106 less if only post-endoscopic high-dose IVs are used; with intermittent IV bolus dosing, the savings are $223 if used both pre and post endoscopy and $191 if only administered post endoscopy. Subgroup analysis suggests cost savings in patients with clean-base ulcers who are discharged early after endoscopy. Results are robust to sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The incremental costs of using different IV PPI regimens are modest compared with total per patient costs.

Comparison of different regimens of proton pump inhibitors for acute peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND

Treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) improves clinical outcomes in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. However, the optimal dose and route of administration of PPIs remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of different regimens of PPIs in the management of acute peptic ulcer bleeding using evidence from direct comparison randomized controlled trials (RCTs).We specifically intended to assess the differential effect of the dose and route of administration of PPI on mortality, rebleeding, surgical intervention, further endoscopic haemostatic treatment (EHT), length of hospital stay, transfusion requirements and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (in The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), MEDLINE and EMBASE (from inception to September 2010) and proceedings of major gastroenterology meetings (January 2000 to September 2010), without language restrictions. Original investigators were contacted to request missing data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared at least two different regimens of the same or a different PPI in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding, diagnosed endoscopically.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We synthesized data using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method and performed multivariate meta-regression with random permutations based on Monte Carlo simulation. We measured heterogeneity with the I² statistic and Cochrane Q test and assessed publication bias with funnel plots and Egger's test. We graded the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty two RCTs were included; risk of bias was high in 17 and unclear in 5. The main analysis included 13 studies (1716 patients) comparing "high" dose regimens (72-hour cumulative dose > 600 mg of intravenous PPI) to other doses; there was no significant heterogeneity for any clinical outcome. We found low quality evidence that did not exclude a potential reduction or increase in mortality, rebleeding, surgical interventions or endoscopic haemostatic treatment (EHT) with "high" dose regimens. For mortality, pooled risk ratio (RR) was 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.54); pooled risk difference (RD) was 0 more deaths per 100 patients treated with "high" dose (95% CI from 1 fewer to 2 more deaths per 100 treated). For rebleeding, pooled RR was 1.27 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.67); pooled RD was 2 more rebleeding events per 100 patients treated with "high" dose (95% CI from 0 fewer to 5 more rebleeding events per 100 treated). For surgical interventions, pooled RR was 1.33 (95% CI 0.63 to 2.77); pooled RD was 1 more surgical intervention per 100 patients treated with "high" dose (95% CI from 1 fewer to 2 more surgical interventions per 100 treated). For further EHT, pooled RR was 1.39 (95% CI 0.88 to 2.18), pooled RD was 2 more events per 100 patients treated with "high" dose PPI (95% CI from 1 fewer to 5 more events per 100 treated). We found moderate quality evidence suggesting no important difference between the two regimens with regards to length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 0.26 days; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.6 days) or blood transfusion requirements (MD 0.05 units; 95% CI -0.21 to 0.3 units). There was visual and statistical evidence of "inverse" publication bias for mortality (missing small studies with favourable outcomes for "high" dose), but not for any other outcome. The results were similar for all subgroup analyses (according to risk of bias, geographical location, route of administration for non-"high" dose regimens, continuous infusion vs. bolus administration for intravenous non-"high" regimens group), sensitivity analyses (restriction to patients who had EHT for high risk stigmata, use of different dose thresholds for comparative regimens) and post hoc analyses (inclusion of all studies (N = 22) that compared at least two PPI regimens with different cumulative 72 hour doses; restriction of the previous analysis to patients who had EHT for high risk stigmata). Meta-regression analysis did not show any statistically significant associations between treatment effect (for the outcomes of mortality, rebleeding and surgical intervention) and the three study-level factors that were assessed (geographical location (Asia versus not Asia), route of PPI administration (intravenous versus oral), within-study ratio among the 72-hour cumulative doses of the two PPI regimens).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence for concluding superiority, inferiority or equivalence of high dose PPI treatment over lower doses in peptic ulcer bleeding.

Oral versus intravenous proton pump inhibitors in preventing re-bleeding for patients with peptic ulcer bleeding after successful endoscopic therapy

BACKGROUND

High dose intravenous proton pump inhibitor after endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer bleeding has been recommended as adjuvant therapy. Whether oral proton pump inhibitor can replace intravenous proton pump inhibitor in this setting is unknown. This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy of oral and intravenous proton pump inhibitor after endoscopic therapy.

METHODS

Patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers after successful endoscopic therapy were randomly assigned as oral lansoprazole or intravenous esomeprazole group. Primary outcome of the study was re-bleeding rate within 14 days. Secondary outcome included hospital stay, volume of blood transfusion, surgical intervention and mortality within 1 month.

RESULTS

From April 2010 to Feb 2011, 100 patients were enrolled in this study. The re-bleeding rates were 4% (2/50) in the intravenous group and 4% (2/50) in the oral group. There was no difference between the two groups with regards to the hospital stay, volume of blood transfusion, surgery or mortality rate. The mean duration of hospital stay was 1.8 days in the oral lansoprazole group and 3.9 days in the intravenous esomeprazole group (p > 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving oral proton pump inhibitor have a shorter hospital stay. There is no evidence of a difference in clinical outcomes between oral and intravenous PPI treatment. However, the study was not powered to prove equivalence or non-inferiority. Future studies are still needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01123031.

Pharmacologic treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding

Over the last 3 decades, there has been extensive clinical research on the pharmacologic treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding. A critical review of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses reveals insufficient evidence to recommend histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H(2)RAs), somatostatin, octreotide, or tranexamic acid in the routine management of patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. In contrast, there is good-quality evidence for recommending proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment for patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. PPI treatment, compared with an H(2)RA or placebo, reduces rebleeding and the need for surgical intervention and, in patients with high-risk endoscopic stigmata, also reduces all-cause mortality. Patients with ulcers that demonstrate only low-risk endoscopic stigmata (clean base or flat pigmented spot) can be treated with an oral PPI at double the standard clinical dose. Patients with ulcers that demonstrate high-risk endoscopic stigmata (spurting, oozing, or nonbleeding visible vessel) should receive high-dose intravenous PPI treatment following appropriate endoscopic hemostatic treatment. The currently recommended dose is an initial intravenous bolus equivalent to 80 mg of omeprazole followed by an intravenous infusion equivalent to 8.0 mg/h of omeprazole for up to 72 hours. A switch to high-dose oral PPI treatment may be appropriate before completion of a 72-hour treatment period in some patients whose clinical status stabilizes early. Once the initial bleeding episode has been dealt with, patients will require standard pharmacologic treatment to heal the ulcer and prevent recurrence.

Pharmacologic therapy for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

There are many clinical outcome measures for evaluation of the effectiveness of a pharmacologic agent in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). As a preemptive treatment, it should reduce the need for emergency endoscopy and endoscopic intervention, facilitate the efficient identification of the bleeding source and, hence, shorten procedure time and reduce the risk of procedure-related complications. As an effective adjunctive therapy after endoscopic hemostasis, it should reduce the incidence of recurrent bleeding and the need to repeat endoscopic hemostasis. This article provides an overview of different pharmacologic agents that have been used in the management of UGIB.

Comparison of oral and intravenous proton pump inhibitor on patients with high risk bleeding peptic ulcers: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) decrease the rate of rebleeding following endoscopic hemostatic therapy in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. This study compares the efficacy of oral omeprazole vs intravenous pantoprazole in decrease of rebleeding of peptic ulcer patients.

METHODS

One hundred and six patients with high risk peptic ulcer were randomized to receive either oral omeprazole (80 mg BID for 3 days) or IV pantoprazole (80 mg bolus and 8 mg/hour infusion for 3 days) followed by omeprazole (20 mg each day for 30 days). All patients underwent upper endoscopy and endoscopic therapy within 24 hours.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients were excluded from the study. Forty four patients were randomly allocated into omeprazole group and 41 patients to IV pantoprazole group. Both groups were similar for factors affecting the outcome. Bleeding reoccurred in five patients of omeprazole group and four patients in pantoprazole group (11.4% vs 9.8 %). The mean hospital stay and blood transfusion were not different in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Oral omeprazole and IV pantoprazole had equal effects on prevention of rebleeding after endoscopic therapy in patients with high risk bleeding peptic ulcers.

High-dose vs low-dose proton pump inhibitors for upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A meta-analysis

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of high-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) vs low-dose PPIs for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Eligible trials were RCTs that compared high-dose PPI with low-dose PPI following endoscopic hemostasis. The primary endpoint was rebleeding; secondary endpoints were patient numbers that needed surgery, and mortality. The meta-analysis was performed with a fixed effects model or random effects model.

RESULTS: Nine eligible RCTs including 1342 patients were retrieved. The results showed that high-dose intravenous PPI was not superior to low-dose intravenous PPI in reducing rebleeding [odds ratio (OR) = 1.091, 95% confidential interval (CI): 0.777-1.532], need for surgery (OR = 1.522, 95% CI: 0.643-3.605) and mortality (OR = 1.022, 95% CI: 0.476-2.196). Subgroup analysis according to different region revealed no difference in rebleeding rate between Asian patients (OR = 0.831, 95% CI, 0.467-1.480) and European patients (OR = 1.263, 95% CI: 0.827-1.929).

CONCLUSION: Low-dose intravenous PPI can achieve the same efficacy as high-dose PPI following endoscopic hemostasis.

Inappropriate utilization of intravenous proton pump inhibitors in hospital practice--a prospective study of the extent of the problem and predictive factors

BACKGROUND

Intravenous (IV) proton pump inhibitors (PPI) reduce rebleeding from high-risk peptic ulcers following endoscopic therapy. The majority of IV PPI prescriptions in US hospital practice are inappropriate, leading to unnecessary drug costs, drug shortages and potential adverse events. To date, little is known about UK hospital IV PPI prescribing practice.

AIMS

To examine IV PPI use in a large university teaching hospital to determine factors predicting inappropriate prescribing practices.

METHODS

Prospective study of 276 recently hospitalized patients initiated on IV PPI over a 6-month period. IV PPI use was deemed appropriate for the following indications: endoscopic evidence of recent upper gastrointestinal (UGI) haemorrhage, patient nil by mouth with a valid indication for oral PPI therapy and stress ulcer prophylaxis in a critical care setting.

RESULTS

The majority (208/276, 75.4%) of IV PPI prescriptions were deemed inappropriate in terms of either indication for use, dose or duration of therapy. The majority (168/276, 60.9%) of prescriptions were initiated on non-medical wards. Inappropriate prescribing was more common amongst female patients, surgical admissions, non-UGI haemorrhage cases and when initiated by junior hospital doctors. Surgical admission [odds ratio (OR) 2.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-7.42] and female gender [OR 3.92 (95% CI 1.84-8.34)] were independently predictive of inappropriate use.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the majority of IV PPI prescriptions in hospital are inappropriate, particularly when initiated for non-UGI bleeding indications. Improving prescribing awareness through education of junior medical staff on non-medical wards could reduce inappropriate IV PPI use.

Non-invasive testing for Helicobacter pylori in patients hospitalized with peptic ulcer hemorrhage: a cost-effectiveness analysis

PURPOSE

Guidelines recommend routine invasive screening for Helicobacter pylori in patients with peptic ulcer hemorrhage (PUH). However, compliance with screening remains suboptimal. The aim of this study was to determine if a simplified approach based on noninvasive screening is cost effective in PUH.

RESULTS

In the base case, post-endoscopy urea breath test (UBT) dominated the invasive testing with 34 fewer hemorrhages and cost savings of $406,600 in a cohort of 10,000 patients. When compliance with invasive testing decreases to 60%, post-endoscopy UBT leads to 109 fewer hemorrhages and cost savings of $1,089,600. The invasive strategy becomes the preferred choice if the sensitivity of UBT reduces to <75%, such as in patients taking proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) before hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-endoscopy UBT is cost effective in PPI-naïve patients presenting with PUH. This strategy, once prospectively validated, can prove to be a preferred approach in institutions where compliance with invasive testing is suboptimal.

Gastric acid inhibition in the treatment of peptic ulcer hemorrhage

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding from peptic ulcer disease is a common clinical event, resulting in considerable patient morbidity and significant health care costs. Inhibiting gastric acid secretion is a key component in improving clinical outcomes, including reducing rebleeding, transfusion requirements, and surgery. Raising intragastric pH promotes clot stability and reduces the influences of gastric acid and pepsin. Patients with high-risk stigmata for ulcer bleeding (arterial bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessels, and adherent clots) benefit significantly from and should receive high-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) after successful endoscopic hemostasis. For patients with low-risk stigmata (flat spots or clean ulcer base), oral PPI therapy alone is sufficient. For oozing bleeding (an intermediate risk finding), successful endoscopic hemostasis and oral PPI are recommended. Using intravenous PPIs before endoscopy appears to reduce the frequency of finding high-risk stigmata on later endoscopy, but has not been shown to improve clinical outcomes. High-dose oral PPIs may be as effective as intravenous infusion in achieving positive clinical outcomes, but this has not been documented by randomized studies and its cost-effectiveness is unclear.

Cost effectiveness of high-dose intravenous esomeprazole for peptic ulcer bleeding

Peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) is a serious and sometimes fatal condition. The outcome of PUB strongly depends on the risk of rebleeding. A recent multinational placebo-controlled clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00251979) showed that high-dose intravenous (IV) esomeprazole, when administered after successful endoscopic haemostasis in patients with PUB, is effective in preventing rebleeding. From a policy perspective it is important to assess the cost efficacy of this benefit so as to enable clinicians and payers to make an informed decision regarding the management of PUB. Using a decision-tree model, we compared the cost efficacy of high-dose IV esomeprazole versus an approach of no-IV proton pump inhibitor for prevention of rebleeding in patients with PUB. The model adopted a 30-day time horizon and the perspective of third-party payers in the USA and Europe. The main efficacy variable was the number of averted rebleedings. Healthcare resource utilization costs (physician fees, hospitalizations, surgeries, pharmacotherapies) relevant for the management of PUB were also determined. Data for unit costs (prices) were primarily taken from official governmental sources, and data for other model assumptions were retrieved from the original clinical trial and the literature. After successful endoscopic haemostasis, patients received either high-dose IV esomeprazole (80 mg infusion over 30 min, then 8 mg/hour for 71.5 hours) or no-IV esomeprazole treatment, with both groups receiving oral esomeprazole 40 mg once daily from days 4 to 30. Rebleed rates at 30 days were 7.7% and 13.6%, respectively, for the high-dose IV esomeprazole and no-IV esomeprazole treatment groups (equating to a number needed to treat of 17 in order to prevent one additional patient from rebleeding). In the US setting, the average cost per patient for the high-dose IV esomeprazole strategy was $US14 290 compared with $US14 239 for the no-IV esomeprazole strategy (year 2007 values). For the European setting, Sweden and Spain were used as examples. In the Swedish setting the corresponding respective figures were Swedish kronor (SEK)67 862 ($US9220 at average 2006 interbank exchange rates) and SEK67 807 ($US9212) [year 2006 values]. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $US866 and SEK938 ($US127), respectively, per averted rebleed when using IV esomeprazole. For the Spanish setting, the high-dose IV esomeprazole strategy was dominant (more effective and less costly than the no-IV esomeprazole strategy) [year 2008 values]. All results appeared robust to univariate/threshold sensitivity analysis, with high-dose IV esomeprazole becoming dominant with small variations in assumptions in the US and Swedish settings, while remaining a dominant approach in the Spanish scenario across a broad range of values. Sensitivity variables with prespecified ranges included lengths of stay and per diem assumptions, rebleeding rates and, in some cases, professional fees. In patients with PUB, high-dose IV esomeprazole after successful endoscopic haemostasis appears to improve outcomes at a modest increase in costs relative to a no-IV esomeprazole strategy from the US and Swedish third-party payer perspective. Whereas, in the Spanish setting, the high-dose IV esomeprazole strategy appeared dominant, being more effective and less costly.

Oral buffered esomeprazole is superior to i.v. pantoprazole for rapid rise of intragastric pH: a wireless pH metry analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A pH of more than 6 is required for clot stability and hemostasis. Intravenous proton pump inhibitors have a rapid onset of action compared to oral and have been preferred for management of non-variceal bleeding. Intravenous pantoprazole has been used extensively. Buffered esomeprazole (BE) is an oral preparation consisting of an inner core of non-enteric-coated esomeprazole with a shell of sodium bicarbonate. The buffer protects against acid degradation of esomeprazole in addition to immediate antacid action. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of BE for raising and maintaining an intragastric pH of more than 6 in comparison to i.v. pantoprazole in equivalent dosing.

METHODS

A randomized two-way cross-over study was conducted. Ten healthy volunteers were randomized to twice daily BE 40 mg or pantoprazole 40 mg i.v. bolus. Intragastric pH was measured with a wireless pH radiotelemetry capsule (Bravo, Medtronic). A 2-week washout period was given between doses.

RESULTS

BE achieved a steady pH of more than 6 in a median time of 2 min (range 1-5 min) after the first dose. The mean % time that intragastric pH was more than 6.0 for BE was 96%, and 90% of the 24-h period compared to pantoprazole (47% and 18%), P = 0.000. A median pH (interquartile range) for the BE group was 6.2 (6.175-6.2) which was higher than i.v. pantoprazole 4.60 (4.5-5.0) (P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

BE achieves and maintains a pH of more than 6 within minutes of administration. It was significantly superior to i.v. pantoprazole in equivalent dosing. This finding could have implications in the management of non-variceal bleed where a rapid and sustained pH of more than 6 is desirable.

The role of proton pump inhibitors in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Pre-endoscopic administration of PPIs in patients with nonvariceal upper GI bleeding is still of controversial efficacy. It downstages the severity of the endoscopic signs of recent bleeding and may reduce the requirement for endoscopic hemostatic therapy at index endoscopy. However, there is no evidence of an effect on mortality, rebleeding, or surgical intervention rates. In contrast, the efficacy of PPIs in endoscopically diagnosed peptic ulcer bleeding is supported by high-quality evidence from numerous RCTs and meta-analyses of RCTs. PPIs compared with H2RAs or placebo consistently reduce rebleeding rates regardless of dose, route of administration, application or not of endoscopic hemostatic treatment, and geographic location. Surgical intervention rates and the need for further endoscopic hemostatic treatment are also reduced by PPI treatment, although the results are not as robust as those for rebleeding. There is no evidence of an overall effect of PPI treatment on all-cause mortality. However, all-cause mortality is reduced among patients with high-risk endoscopic signs and among trials that had been conducted in Asia. The optimal dose and route of PPI administration has yet to be determined.

Addition of adult-to-adult living donation to liver transplant programs improves survival but at an increased cost

Using outcomes data from the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis exploring the costs and benefits of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). A multistage Markov decision analysis model was developed with treatment, including medical management only (strategy 1), waiting list with possible deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT; strategy 2), and waiting list with possible LDLT or DDLT (strategy 3) over 10 years. Decompensated cirrhosis with medical management offered survival of 2.0 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) while costing an average of $65,068, waiting list with possible DDLT offered 4.4-QALY survival and a mean cost of $151,613, and waiting list with possible DDLT or LDLT offered 4.9-QALY survival and a mean cost of $208,149. Strategy 2 had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $35,976 over strategy 1, whereas strategy 3 produced an ICER of $106,788 over strategy 2. On average, strategy 3 cost $47,693 more per QALY than strategy 1. Both DDLT and LDLT were cost-effective compared to medical management of cirrhosis over our 10-year study period. The addition of LDLT to a standard waiting list DDLT program is effective at improving recipient survival and preventing waiting list deaths but at a greater cost.

Budget-impact analyses: a critical review of published studies

This article reviews budget-impact analyses (BIAs) published to date in peer-reviewed bio-medical journals with reference to current best practice, and discusses where future research needs to be directed. Published BIAs were identified by conducting a computerized search on PubMed using the search term 'budget impact analysis'. The years covered by the search included January 2000 through November 2008. Only studies (i) named by authors as BIAs and (ii) predicting financial consequences of adoption and diffusion of a new health intervention(s) within a specific healthcare setting were included. Relevant studies were evaluated according to the checklist that focuses on issues unique to BIA, highlighting areas of agreement or dissent between published studies and methodological guidelines. A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria, the majority published in 2007-8. Of these, 41% were from the US, 54% were prepared for pharmaceuticals and 65% had BIA as their main aim. The published BIAs were heterogeneous in respect of methods for deriving budget-impact estimates, time horizon and population. There is fairly good agreement between published studies and methodological guidelines within the scope of perspective, comparator, cost included and data sources. Specific issues that need to be addressed and/or improved are reporting format, sensitivity analysis and discounting. The results indicate that, recently, BIAs have appeared more frequently in peer-reviewed journals, providing stimulus to development, validation and dissemination of methods. Many published studies fail to reach the desired quality, but this situation should change with good research practice principles that will help codify and clarify important issues and promote standardization and transparency. Future research needs to be directed to quality assurance of published BIAs and investment in data collection for parameters specific to BIAs.

Oral or intravenous proton pump inhibitor in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding after successful endoscopic epinephrine injection

AIMS

We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of oral vs. intravenous (i.v.) regular-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) after endoscopic injection of epinephrine in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

Peptic ulcer patients with active bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessels, or adherent clots were enrolled after successful endoscopic haemostasis achieved by epinephrine injection. They were randomized to receive either oral rabeprazole (RAB group, 20 mg twice daily for 3 days) or i.v. omeprazole (OME group, 40 mg i.v. infusion every 12 h for 3 days). Subsequently, the enrolled patients receive oral PPI for 2 months (rabeprazole 20 mg or esomeprazole 40 mg once daily). The primary end-point was recurrent bleeding up to 14 days. The hospital stay, blood transfusion, surgery and mortality within 14 days were compared as well.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients were enrolled, with 78 patients randomly allocated in each group. The two groups were well matched for factors affecting the clinical outcomes. Primary end-points (recurrent bleeding up to 14 days) were reached in 12 patients (15.4%) in the OME group and 13 patients (16.7%) in the RAB group [95% confidence interval (CI) of difference -12.82, 10.22]. All the rebleeding events occurred within 3 days of enrolment. The two groups were not different in hospital stay, volume of blood transfusion, surgery or mortality rate (1.3% of the OME group and 2.6% of the RAB group died, 95% CI of difference -5.6, 3.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral rabeprazole and i.v. regular-dose omeprazole are equally effective in preventing rebleeding in patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers after successful endoscopic injection with epinephrine.

Management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to ulcer disease is common and results in substantial patient morbidity and medical expense. After initial resuscitation to stabilize the patient, carefully performed endoscopy provides an accurate diagnosis and identifies high-risk ulcer patients who are likely to rebleed with medical therapy alone and will benefit most from endoscopic hemostasis. For patients with major stigmata of ulcer hemorrhage--active arterial bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessel, and adherent clot--combination therapy with epinephrine injection and either thermal coagulation (multipolar or heater probe) or endoclips is recommended. High-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors are recommended as concomitant therapy after successful endoscopic hemostasis. Patients with minor stigmata or clean-based ulcers will not benefit from endoscopic treatment and should receive high-dose oral proton pump inhibitor therapy. Effective medical and endoscopic management of ulcer hemorrhage can significantly improve outcomes and decrease the cost of medical care by reducing rebleeding, transfusion requirements, and the need for surgery.

High- versus low-dose proton pump inhibitors after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding: a multicentre, randomized study

BACKGROUND

The most effective schedule of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) administration following endoscopic hemostasis of bleeding ulcers remains uncertain.

METHODS

Patients with actively bleeding ulcers and those with nonbleeding visible vessel or adherent clot were treated with epinephrine injection and/or thermal coagulation, and randomized to receive intravenous PPIs according to an intensive regimen (80 mg bolus followed by 8 mg/h as continuous infusion for 72 h) or a standard regimen (40 mg bolus daily followed by saline infusion for 72 h). After the infusion, all patients were given 20 mg PPI twice daily orally. The primary end point was the in-hospital rebleeding rate, as ascertained at the repeat endoscopy.

RESULTS

Bleeding recurred in 28 of 238 patients (11.8%) receiving the intensive regimen, and in 19 of 236 (8.1%) patients receiving the standard regimen (P= 0.18). Most rebleeding episodes occurred during the initial 72-h infusion: 18 (7.6%) and 19 events (8.1%) in the intensive and standard groups, respectively (P= 0.32). Mean units of blood transfused were 1.7 +/- 2.1 in the intensive and 1.5 +/- 2.1 in the standard regimen group (P= 0.34). The duration of hospital stay was <5 days for 88 (37.0%) and 111 patients (47.0%) in the intensive and standard groups (P= 0.03). There were fewer surgical interventions in the standard versus intensive regimen (1 vs 3). Five patients in each treatment group died.

CONCLUSIONS

Following endoscopic hemostasis of bleeding ulcers, standard-dose PPIs infusion was as effective as a high-dose regimen in reducing the risk of recurrent bleeding. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00374101).

Proton pump inhibitors: an update of their clinical use and pharmacokinetics

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) represent drugs of first choice for treating peptic ulcer, Helicobacter pylori infection, gastrooesophageal reflux disease, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced gastrointestinal lesions (complications), and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome.

RESULTS

The available agents (omeprazole/esomeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole) differ somewhat in their pharmacokinetic properties (e.g., time-/dose-dependent bioavailability, metabolic pattern, interaction potential, genetic variability). For all PPIs, there is a clear relationship between drug exposure (area under the plasma concentration/time curve) and the pharmacodynamic response (inhibition of acid secretion). Furthermore, clinical outcome (e.g., healing and eradication rates) depends on maintaining intragastric pH values above certain threshold levels. Thus, any changes in drug disposition will subsequently be translated directly into clinical efficiency so that extensive metabolizers of CYP2C19 will demonstrate a higher rate of therapeutic nonresponse.

CONCLUSIONS

This update of pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and clinical data will provide the necessary guide by which to select between the various PPIs that differ-based on pharmacodynamic assessments-in their relative potencies (e.g., higher doses are needed for pantoprazole and lansoprazole compared with rabeprazole). Despite their well-documented clinical efficacy and safety, there is still a certain number of patients who are refractory to treatment with PPIs (nonresponder), which will leave sufficient space for future drug development and clinical research.

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.

Erythromycin prior to endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Erythromycin is a potent stimulator of gastrointestinal motility. Recent studies have examined the use of intravenous erythromycin to clear the stomach of blood before oesophago-gastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage (UGIH). These studies have shown clinical effectiveness.

AIM

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this intervention.

METHODS

We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of erythromycin before EGD from the payer's perspective. We found three relevant studies of erythromycin and used these data for the analysis. We obtained costs for intravenous erythromycin and charges for peptic ulcer hospitalization, EGD, surgery, and angiographic embolization. Complication rates were also incorporated from the literature. We implemented a model of health-related quality of life to measure the impact of the intervention. We created a decision-analysis tree and performed a probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

A strategy of erythromycin prior to EGD resulted in a cost-effective outcome in a majority of trials using willingness-to-pay figures of USD 0, USD 50,000 and USD 100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

CONCLUSION

Because of the implications for cost saving and increase in QALY, we would recommend giving erythromycin prior to EGD for UGIH.

The cost-effectiveness and budget impact of competing therapies in hepatic encephalopathy - a decision analysis

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for hepatic encephalopathy have disparate risks and benefits. Non-absorbable disaccharides and neomycin are limited by uncertain efficacy and common dose-limiting side effects. In contrast, rifaximin is safe and effective in hepatic encephalopathy, but is more expensive.

METHODS

We conducted a decision analysis to calculate the cost-effectiveness of six strategies in hepatic encephalopathy: (i) no hepatic encephalopathy treatment, (ii) lactulose monotherapy, (iii) lactitol monotherapy, (iv) neomycin monotherapy, (v) rifaximin monotherapy and (vi) up-front lactulose with crossover to rifaximin if poor response or intolerance of lactulose ('rifaximin salvage'). The primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

RESULTS

Under base-case conditions, 'do nothing' was least effective and rifaximin salvage was most effective. Lactulose monotherapy was least expensive, and rifaximin monotherapy was most expensive. When balancing cost and effectiveness, lactulose monotherapy and rifaximin salvage dominated alternative strategies. Compared to lactulose monotherapy, rifaximin salvage cost an incremental US$2315 per quality-adjusted life-year-gained. The cost of rifaximin had to fall below US$1.03/tab in order for rifaximin monotherapy to dominate lactulose monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Rifaximin monotherapy is not cost-effective in the treatment of chronic hepatic encephalopathy at current average wholesale prices. However, a hybrid salvage strategy, reserving rifaximin for lactulose-refractory patients, may be highly cost-effective.