Eggleston A, Wigerinck A, Huijghebaert S, Dubois D, Haycox A
Janssen Research Foundation, Beerse, Belgium.
Gut. 1998 Jan;42(1):13-6. doi: 10.1136/gut.42.1.13.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
先前对用于胃食管反流病(GORD)的抗反流药物成本效益的评估是基于对照临床试验的结果。不幸的是,这种方法不一定能确定在现实生活中从可用资源中获得最大益处的治疗选择。要做出明智的选择,需要认识到实际治疗中的成本和效益可能与试验中确定的不同。
基于回顾性处方数据库分析,评估单纯性GORD患者替代治疗方案的成本效益。该分析评估了最初开具西沙必利(CIS)、雷尼替丁(RAN)或奥美拉唑(OME)的三组患者在治疗前六个月的卫生服务资源使用情况。
使用英国MediPlus数据库确定三个治疗组患者在治疗前六个月消耗的所有医疗资源。因最初转诊至专科医生或门诊就诊(<13%)而表明患有更复杂GORD的患者被排除在分析之外。
基于CIS、RAN和OME治疗的患者最初六个月治疗的平均成本分别为每位患者136英镑、177英镑、189英镑。这种成本差异的一个主要因素是患者所需抗反流药物的购置成本和数量。在这六个月期间消耗的相当于一个月的平均处方数量分别为1.85(CIS)、2.57(RAN)和2.96(OME),相关成本分别为49英镑(CIS)、67英镑(RAN)和105英镑(OME)。CIS组和RAN组使用抗酸剂和藻酸盐/抗酸剂的情况较多(每位患者约1.0次抗酸剂处方,而OME组为0.4次),但它们对每位患者总成本的贡献不到2%。每个治疗组在六个月期间全科医生会诊的次数分别为2.4(CIS)、2.9(RAN)和2.6(OME),相关成本分别为60.31英镑(CIS)、73.06英镑(RAN)和65.52英镑(OME)。RAN组非药物干预(转诊、门诊就诊、内镜检查、钡餐或X光检查)的平均次数为0.34,而CIS组和OME组少于0.2次。与这些干预相关的成本分别为每位患者23.80英镑(RAN)、9.60英镑(CIS)和11.10英镑(OME)。
数据表明,对于首次诊断为单纯性GORD的患者,初级保健医生采用从促动力药或H2受体拮抗剂开始的“逐步升级”方法是最具成本效益的初始治疗策略。