Literature DB >> 9505878

Cost effectiveness of treatment for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in clinical practice: a clinical database analysis.

A Eggleston1, A Wigerinck, S Huijghebaert, D Dubois, A Haycox.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous evaluation of the cost effectiveness of antireflux medication used in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) have been based on results obtained in controlled clinical trials. Unfortunately such an approach does not necessarily identify the therapeutic option which provides the greatest benefit from available resources in real life situations. To make an informed choice requires a recognition that the costs and benefits of therapy in practice may differ from those identified in trials. AIMS: To evaluate, based on a retrospective prescription database analysis, the cost effectiveness of alternative treatment options for patients with uncomplicated GORD. The analysis assesses health service resource use during the first six months of treatment in three groups of patients initially prescribed cisapride (CIS), ranitidine (RAN), or omeprazole (OME).
METHODS: The MediPlus UK database was used to identify all health care resources consumed by patients in the three treatment groups during their first six months of treatment. Patients with more complicated GORD, as indicated by initial referral to a specialist or outpatient hospital visit (< 13%), were excluded from the analysis.
RESULTS: The average cost per patient for the initial six months of treatment for CIS, RAN, and OME based therapies was 136 Pounds, 177 Pounds, 189 Pounds per patient, respectively. A major element underlying this cost variation was the acquisition cost and quantity of antireflux medication required by patients. The average number of one month equivalent prescriptions consumed during this six month period was 1.85 (CIS), 2.57 (RAN), and 2.96 (OME) with associated costs of 49 Pounds (CIS), 67 Pounds (RAN), and 105 Pounds (OME). Antacid and alginate/antacid use was higher in the CIS and RAN groups (about 1.0 antacid prescription per patient versus 0.4 for OME), but their contribution to the total cost per patient was less than 2%. The number of general practitioner consultations over the six month period for each treatment group was 2.4 (CIS), 2.9 (RAN), and 2.6 (OME) with associated costs of 60.31 Pounds (CIS), 73.06 Pounds (RAN), and 65.52 Pounds (OME). The average number of non-drug interventions (referrals, outpatient visits, endoscopies, barium meals, or x rays) was 0.34 in the RAN group compared with less than 0.2 in the CIS and OME groups. The costs associated with such interventions were 23.80 Pounds (RAN), 9.60 Pounds (CIS), and 11.10 Pounds (OME) per patient.
CONCLUSION: The data indicate that the "step up" approach, starting with a prokinetic or H2 receptor antagonist, represents the most cost effective initial therapeutic strategy for a primary care physician to adopt when faced with a patient with first diagnosis of uncomplicated GORD.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9505878      PMCID: PMC1726943          DOI: 10.1136/gut.42.1.13

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gut        ISSN: 0017-5749            Impact factor:   23.059


  4 in total

1.  Economic evaluation of new medical technology.

Authors:  B Jönsson
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl       Date:  1994

2.  Economic analysis of alternative treatments for persistent gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  A L Hillman
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl       Date:  1994

3.  Cost and quality effects of alternative treatments for persistent gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  A L Hillman; B S Bloom; A M Fendrick; J S Schwartz
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1992-07

Review 4.  Critical issues in the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  J W Freston; J R Malagelada; H Petersen; R F McCloy
Journal:  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 2.566

  4 in total
  11 in total

1.  Heartburn treatment in primary care. Prescribing omeprazole would conflict with desire to control prescribing costs.

Authors:  A Williams
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-05-20

2.  Use of gastroprotective agents in recommended doses in hospitalized patients receiving NSAIDs: a drug utilization study.

Authors:  Viktorija Erdeljic; Igor Francetic; Viola Macolic Sarinic; Marinko Bilusic; Ksenija Makar Ausperger; Mirjana Huic; Iveta Mercep
Journal:  Pharm World Sci       Date:  2006-11-17

3.  Treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in adults. Efficacy of surgery needs to be compared with that of proton pump inhibitors.

Authors:  O Chassany; J F Bergmann; C Caulin
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-01-02

4.  Alginates: From the ocean to gastroesophageal reflux disease treatment.

Authors:  Serhat Bor; İsmail Hakkı Kalkan; Altay Çelebi; Dinç Dinçer; Filiz Akyüz; Peter Dettmar; Hasan Özen
Journal:  Turk J Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 1.852

Review 5.  Efficiency of potent gastric acid inhibition.

Authors:  Fernando Carballo
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 6.  Medical Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

Authors:  Daniel A Kroch; Ryan D Madanick
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.352

7.  Cost effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease without oesophagitis: comparison of on-demand esomeprazole with conventional omeprazole strategies.

Authors:  Peter Wahlqvist; Ola Junghard; Andy Higgins; Jonathan Green
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Proton pump inhibitors. Compliance with a mandated step-up program.

Authors:  M M Mamdani; K Tu; L Jaakkimainen; A Bica; J Hux
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 9.  Functional dyspepsia and nonerosive reflux disease: clinical interactions and their implications.

Authors:  John Keohane; Eamonn M M Quigley
Journal:  MedGenMed       Date:  2007-08-08

10.  Identifying patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: validation of a practical screening tool.

Authors:  Joshua J Ofman; Michael Shaw; Kay Sadik; Amy Grogg; Kirsten Emery; Jay Lee; Eileen Reyes; Steven Fullerton
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 3.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.