The Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Intravenous Versus Oral Proton Pump Inhibitors in Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage

Brennan M R Spiegel, Gareth S. Dulai, Brian S. Lim, Neel Mann, Fasiha Kanwal, Ian M. Gralnek

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

43 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background & Aims: The most cost-effective route of administering proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in peptic ulcer hemorrhage remains uncertain. Oral (PO) PPI therapy may be less effective than intravenous (IV) PPI therapy, but is less expensive and does not mandate a 72-hour posthemostasis hospital stay to complete a full therapeutic course. Because there are currently no published head-to-head clinical trials comparing IV vs PO PPIs, we used decision analysis with budget impact modeling to measure the clinical and economic outcomes of these competing modes of administration. Methods: We compared 3 postendoscopic strategies for high-risk peptic ulcer hemorrhage: (1) PO PPI therapy, (2) IV PPI therapy, and (3) IV histamine2 receptor antagonist therapy. The primary outcomes were cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained, and per-member per-month cost in a hypothetical managed care organization with 1,000,000 covered lives. Results: Compared with the PPI strategies, the histamine2 receptor antagonist strategy was more expensive and less effective. Of the 2 PPI strategies, using IV instead of PO PPI cost an incremental $708,735 per year to gain 1 additional quality-adjusted life-year. Substituting IV in lieu of PO PPI cost each member $2.86 per month to subsidize. The IV PPI strategy became dominant when the rebleed rate with PO PPIs exceeded 24% (base case = 13%), and when the hospital stay on IV PPIs decreased to less than 72 hours. Conclusions: The higher effectiveness of IV PPI therapy may not offset its increased costs vs PO PPI therapy in ulcer hemorrhage. The managed care budget impact of IV PPIs exceeds most benchmarks.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalClinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Volume4
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2006

Fingerprint

Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage
Proton Pump Inhibitors
Budgets
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Costs and Cost Analysis
Therapeutics
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Managed Care Programs
Length of Stay
Benchmarking
Decision Support Techniques

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

The Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Intravenous Versus Oral Proton Pump Inhibitors in Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage. / Spiegel, Brennan M R; Dulai, Gareth S.; Lim, Brian S.; Mann, Neel; Kanwal, Fasiha; Gralnek, Ian M.

In: Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vol. 4, No. 8, 08.2006.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Spiegel, Brennan M R ; Dulai, Gareth S. ; Lim, Brian S. ; Mann, Neel ; Kanwal, Fasiha ; Gralnek, Ian M. / The Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Intravenous Versus Oral Proton Pump Inhibitors in Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage. In: Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2006 ; Vol. 4, No. 8.
@article{402f91fc36a14c59998e81642dc1e3d6,
title = "The Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Intravenous Versus Oral Proton Pump Inhibitors in Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage",
abstract = "Background & Aims: The most cost-effective route of administering proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in peptic ulcer hemorrhage remains uncertain. Oral (PO) PPI therapy may be less effective than intravenous (IV) PPI therapy, but is less expensive and does not mandate a 72-hour posthemostasis hospital stay to complete a full therapeutic course. Because there are currently no published head-to-head clinical trials comparing IV vs PO PPIs, we used decision analysis with budget impact modeling to measure the clinical and economic outcomes of these competing modes of administration. Methods: We compared 3 postendoscopic strategies for high-risk peptic ulcer hemorrhage: (1) PO PPI therapy, (2) IV PPI therapy, and (3) IV histamine2 receptor antagonist therapy. The primary outcomes were cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained, and per-member per-month cost in a hypothetical managed care organization with 1,000,000 covered lives. Results: Compared with the PPI strategies, the histamine2 receptor antagonist strategy was more expensive and less effective. Of the 2 PPI strategies, using IV instead of PO PPI cost an incremental $708,735 per year to gain 1 additional quality-adjusted life-year. Substituting IV in lieu of PO PPI cost each member $2.86 per month to subsidize. The IV PPI strategy became dominant when the rebleed rate with PO PPIs exceeded 24{\%} (base case = 13{\%}), and when the hospital stay on IV PPIs decreased to less than 72 hours. Conclusions: The higher effectiveness of IV PPI therapy may not offset its increased costs vs PO PPI therapy in ulcer hemorrhage. The managed care budget impact of IV PPIs exceeds most benchmarks.",
author = "Spiegel, {Brennan M R} and Dulai, {Gareth S.} and Lim, {Brian S.} and Neel Mann and Fasiha Kanwal and Gralnek, {Ian M.}",
year = "2006",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1016/j.cgh.2006.05.019",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
journal = "Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology",
issn = "1542-3565",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Intravenous Versus Oral Proton Pump Inhibitors in Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage

AU - Spiegel, Brennan M R

AU - Dulai, Gareth S.

AU - Lim, Brian S.

AU - Mann, Neel

AU - Kanwal, Fasiha

AU - Gralnek, Ian M.

PY - 2006/8

Y1 - 2006/8

N2 - Background & Aims: The most cost-effective route of administering proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in peptic ulcer hemorrhage remains uncertain. Oral (PO) PPI therapy may be less effective than intravenous (IV) PPI therapy, but is less expensive and does not mandate a 72-hour posthemostasis hospital stay to complete a full therapeutic course. Because there are currently no published head-to-head clinical trials comparing IV vs PO PPIs, we used decision analysis with budget impact modeling to measure the clinical and economic outcomes of these competing modes of administration. Methods: We compared 3 postendoscopic strategies for high-risk peptic ulcer hemorrhage: (1) PO PPI therapy, (2) IV PPI therapy, and (3) IV histamine2 receptor antagonist therapy. The primary outcomes were cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained, and per-member per-month cost in a hypothetical managed care organization with 1,000,000 covered lives. Results: Compared with the PPI strategies, the histamine2 receptor antagonist strategy was more expensive and less effective. Of the 2 PPI strategies, using IV instead of PO PPI cost an incremental $708,735 per year to gain 1 additional quality-adjusted life-year. Substituting IV in lieu of PO PPI cost each member $2.86 per month to subsidize. The IV PPI strategy became dominant when the rebleed rate with PO PPIs exceeded 24% (base case = 13%), and when the hospital stay on IV PPIs decreased to less than 72 hours. Conclusions: The higher effectiveness of IV PPI therapy may not offset its increased costs vs PO PPI therapy in ulcer hemorrhage. The managed care budget impact of IV PPIs exceeds most benchmarks.

AB - Background & Aims: The most cost-effective route of administering proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in peptic ulcer hemorrhage remains uncertain. Oral (PO) PPI therapy may be less effective than intravenous (IV) PPI therapy, but is less expensive and does not mandate a 72-hour posthemostasis hospital stay to complete a full therapeutic course. Because there are currently no published head-to-head clinical trials comparing IV vs PO PPIs, we used decision analysis with budget impact modeling to measure the clinical and economic outcomes of these competing modes of administration. Methods: We compared 3 postendoscopic strategies for high-risk peptic ulcer hemorrhage: (1) PO PPI therapy, (2) IV PPI therapy, and (3) IV histamine2 receptor antagonist therapy. The primary outcomes were cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained, and per-member per-month cost in a hypothetical managed care organization with 1,000,000 covered lives. Results: Compared with the PPI strategies, the histamine2 receptor antagonist strategy was more expensive and less effective. Of the 2 PPI strategies, using IV instead of PO PPI cost an incremental $708,735 per year to gain 1 additional quality-adjusted life-year. Substituting IV in lieu of PO PPI cost each member $2.86 per month to subsidize. The IV PPI strategy became dominant when the rebleed rate with PO PPIs exceeded 24% (base case = 13%), and when the hospital stay on IV PPIs decreased to less than 72 hours. Conclusions: The higher effectiveness of IV PPI therapy may not offset its increased costs vs PO PPI therapy in ulcer hemorrhage. The managed care budget impact of IV PPIs exceeds most benchmarks.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33746505482&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33746505482&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cgh.2006.05.019

DO - 10.1016/j.cgh.2006.05.019

M3 - Article

C2 - 16844422

AN - SCOPUS:33746505482

VL - 4

JO - Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

JF - Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

SN - 1542-3565

IS - 8

ER -