OBJECTIVE: This 1-year study compared the cost effectiveness of omeprazole and ranitidine when used as initial therapy in an intermittent treatment strategy for the management of patients with symptomatic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease with or without erosive oesophagitis. DESIGN AND SETTING: A prospective health economic analysis was conducted alongside an international multicentre randomised, double-blind clinical study. The economic analysis was performed from a societal perspective. PATIENTS: A total of 704 patients in the UK, the Republic of Ireland, Germany, France, Italy and Spain were randomised to 1 of the 3 treatment groups. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to receive either omeprazole 20 mg once daily, omeprazole 10 mg once daily or ranitidine 150 mg twice daily. Initial treatment failure resulted in dose titration and drug switching from ranitidine to omeprazole, and subsequently open maintenance treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The estimated mean direct medical costs (medication and number of visits and endoscopies) were found to be lower for both dosages of omeprazole than for ranitidine in all countries except Germany. However, none of the differences were statistically significant. The differences between omeprazole 10 mg and omeprazole 20 mg were small and nonsignificant. With regard to numbers of symptom-free days, both omeprazole 20 mg and omeprazole 10 mg were found to be more effective than ranitidine. However, none of the differences were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Following a pragmatic interpretation, incorporating intermediate short term results, the results in this study give no support to the notion that a step-up approach, either as dose titration from omeprazole 10 mg to omeprazole 20 mg or as drug switching from ranitidine to omeprazole, will result in cost savings and thereby be cost effective.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This 1-year study compared the cost effectiveness of omeprazole and ranitidine when used as initial therapy in an intermittent treatment strategy for the management of patients with symptomatic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease with or without erosive oesophagitis. DESIGN AND SETTING: A prospective health economic analysis was conducted alongside an international multicentre randomised, double-blind clinical study. The economic analysis was performed from a societal perspective. PATIENTS: A total of 704 patients in the UK, the Republic of Ireland, Germany, France, Italy and Spain were randomised to 1 of the 3 treatment groups. INTERVENTIONS:Patients were randomised to receive either omeprazole 20 mg once daily, omeprazole 10 mg once daily or ranitidine 150 mg twice daily. Initial treatment failure resulted in dose titration and drug switching from ranitidine to omeprazole, and subsequently open maintenance treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The estimated mean direct medical costs (medication and number of visits and endoscopies) were found to be lower for both dosages of omeprazole than for ranitidine in all countries except Germany. However, none of the differences were statistically significant. The differences between omeprazole 10 mg and omeprazole 20 mg were small and nonsignificant. With regard to numbers of symptom-free days, both omeprazole 20 mg and omeprazole 10 mg were found to be more effective than ranitidine. However, none of the differences were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Following a pragmatic interpretation, incorporating intermediate short term results, the results in this study give no support to the notion that a step-up approach, either as dose titration from omeprazole 10 mg to omeprazole 20 mg or as drug switching from ranitidine to omeprazole, will result in cost savings and thereby be cost effective.
Authors: M B Fennerty; D Castell; A M Fendrick; M Halpern; D Johnson; P J Kahrilas; D Leiberman; J E Richter; R E Sampliner Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 1996-03-11