Cost-effectiveness of alternative medications in the treatment of duodenal ulcer

An economic model of long-term use of celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis

Background

Previous evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of the cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitor celecoxib (Celebrex, Pfizer Inc, USA) have produced conflicting results. The recent controversy over the cardiovascular (CV) risks of rofecoxib and other coxibs has renewed interest in the economic profile of celecoxib, the only coxib now available in the United States. The objective of our study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of celecoxib compared with nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsNSAIDs) in a population of 60-year-old osteoarthritis (OA) patients with average risks of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) complications who require chronic daily NSAID therapy.

Methods

We used decision analysis based on data from the literature to evaluate cost-effectiveness from a modified societal perspective over patients' lifetimes, with outcomes expressed as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity tests were performed to evaluate the impacts of advancing age, CV thromboembolic event risk, different analytic horizons and alternate treatment strategies after UGI adverse events.

Results

Our main findings were: 1) the base model incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for celecoxib versus nsNSAIDs was $31,097 per QALY; 2) the ICER per QALY was $19,309 for a model in which UGI ulcer and ulcer complication event risks increased with advancing age; 3) the ICER per QALY was $17,120 in sensitivity analyses combining serious CV thromboembolic event (myocardial infarction, stroke, CV death) risks with base model assumptions.

Conclusion

Our model suggests that chronic celecoxib is cost-effective versus nsNSAIDs in a population of 60-year-old OA patients with average risks of UGI events.

Eradication of Helicobacter pylori: therapies and clinical implications

This review presents a critical evaluation of the role of Helicobacter pylori eradication in the management of peptic ulcer disease and non-ulcer dyspepsia. On current evidence, H. pylori eradication therapy seems likely to emerge as the most rational and cost-effective treatment for duodenal ulcer. The role of H. pylori eradication in the treatment of gastric ulcer and non-ulcer dyspepsia is unclear and requires further study. The emerging problem of antibiotic resistance in H. pylori is of major clinical importance and a prime cause of treatment failure. There is increasing evidence of a link between H. pylori and gastric cancer but it is premature to recommend large-scale eradication of H. pylori as a valid strategy for the primary prevention of gastric cancer. The search continues for the ideal H. pylori eradication regimen.

Helicobacter pylori

Helicobacter pylori is a unique pathogen and the leading cause of chronic gastric inflammation. For many individuals the organism is of low virulence, causing only mild inflammation and generating few, if any, dyspeptic symptoms. For those with more severe inflammation, H. pylori infection may be causal in the generation of dyspeptic symptoms. H. pylori infection appears to be the dominant factor in peptic ulcer disease. Events considered to be of importance are a disturbed gastrin homeostasis and the development of gastric metaplasia in the bulb. The most important argument in support of the dominant role of H. pylori in duodenal ulcer disease is the markedly reduced ulcer relapse after successful eradication. Eradication proves to be difficult, presumably because of the peculiar habitat of the organism. Currently the best pharmacologic approach is triple therapy, combining a bismuth salt, metronidazole, and amoxycillin or tetracycline.