BUDGET IMPACT ANALYSIS OF USING OMEPRAZOLE IMMEDIATE-RELEASE ORAL SUSPENSION IN REPLACE OF INTRAVENOUS PANTOPRAZOLE IN CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS

Main Article Content

Naghmeh Foroutan
Fanak Fahimi
Yasamin Dabiri
Arash Foroutan
Maryam Habibi
Jamshid Salamzadeh

Keywords

Budget impact, upper GI bleeding, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), oral suspension, critically ill patients

Abstract

Objectives


The aim of the present study was to estimate the financial consequence of using omeprazole immediate-release (IR) oral suspension versus pantoprazole intravenous infusion for preventing stress-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients from the perspective of the health care system.


Methods


An Excel-based model was developed to compare the cost of prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding early after intensive care admission using the current intravenous ( IV ) pantoprazole formulation versus omeprazole IR oral suspension. Total costs inc luded the cost of acid suppressive drugs and related clinical outcomes. Inputs were obtained from a local clinical trial, the Ministry of Health database, insurance organizations, hospital and pharmacy registries, the relevant literature, and expert opinion. The robustness of the input data was investigated by one -way sensitivity analysis. The model was developed based on the results of a randomized control trial (RCT ), in which experimental and control groups received omeprazole and pantoprazole, respectively.


Results


According to the proposed model, the cost of gastrointestinal ( GI ) bleeding prevention using pantoprazole IV was US$ 950,000 while US$ 750,000 was spent on receiving omeprazole oral suspension. These costs led to the annual cost -saving of almost US$ 200,000 ( US$ 4 per member, per month) for the health care system.


Conclusion


In the present study, a budget impact analysis was performed to assess the financial consequences of using omeprazole IR oral suspension in place of pantoprazole IV for prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The better preventive effect of omeprazole IR oral suspension when compared with conventional therapy using pantoprazole IV was the major reason for the final comparative budgetary savings.

Abstract 178 | PDF Downloads 52

References

1. Fennerty MB. Pathophysiology of the upper gastrointestinal tract in the critically ill patient: rationale for the therapeutic benefits of acid suppression. Crit Care Med 2002;30(6):S351- 5.
2. Metz DC. Potential uses of intravenous proton pump inhibitors to control gastric acid secretion. Digestion 2000; 62:73- 81.
3. Hernández C, el -Ebiary M, Gonzalez J, et al. Relationship between ventilator -associated pneumonia and intramucosal gastric pHi: a case- control study. J Crit Care 1996 ;11(3):122- 8.
4. Conrad S, Gabrielli A, Margolis B, et al. Randomized, double -blind comparison of immediate -release omeprazole oral suspension versus intravenous cimetidine for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 2005; 33(4):760- 5.
5. Phillips JO, Metzler MH, Palmieri MT, et al. A prospective study of simplified omeprazole suspension for the prophylaxis of stress -related mucosal damage. Crit Care Med 1996; 24(11): 1793- 800.
6. Dabi ri Y, et al. The comparison of extemporaneous preparations of omeprazole, pantoprazole oral suspension and intravenous pantoprazole on the gastric pH of critically ill - patients. Indian J Crit Care Med 2015 :19(1):21 -6.
7. Lasky MR, Metzler MH, Phillips JO. A prospective study of omeprazole suspension to prevent clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding from stress ulcers in mechanically ventilated trauma patients. J Trauma 1998;44:527- 33.
8. Cederberg C, Thomson A, Mahachai V, et al. Effect of intravenous and oral omeprazole on 24- hour intragastric acidity in duodenal ulcer patients. Gastroenterology 1992;103(3):913- 8.
9. Brett S. Science review: The use of proton pump inhibitors for gastric acid suppression in critical illness. Crit Care 2005;9(1):45 -50.
10. Hey land DK, Cook DJ, Schoenfeld PS, et al. The effect of acidified enteral feeds on gastric colonization in critically ill patients: results of a multicenter randomized trial. Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. Crit Care Med 1999;27(11):2399- 406.
11. Knechtle SJ, Kempf K, Bollinger RR. Peptic ulcer disease following renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 1987;19:2233- 5.
12. Jamshidi HR, Fo routan N, Salamzadeh J. Budget impact a nalysis: a practical policy making tool for drug reimbursement decisions. Iran J Pharm Res 2014; 13(3):1105- 9.
13. Dinarvand R. A n ew pharmaceutical environment in Iran: Ma rketing Impacts. Iran J Pharm Res 2003;2(2):1- 2.
14. Peura DA. Recognizing, setting therapeutic goals, and selecting therapy for the prevention and treatment of stress -related muc osal damage. Pharmacotherapy 1987;7(6 Pt 2):95S -103S.
15. Bonten MJ, Gaillard CA, de Leeuw PW, Stobberingh E. Role of colonization of the upper intestinal tract in the pathogenesis of ventilator - associated pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis 1997;24(3):309- 19.
16. Spirt MJ. Stress -related mucosal disease: risk factors and prophylactic therapy. Clin Ther 2004;26(2):197- 213.