The American journal of gastroenterology · 2026
Proton Pump Inhibitors Are More Cost-Effective Than Potassium Competitive Acid Blockers for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Karlin Kate L, Gilbert Ella H, Lim Francesca, Agyekum Alice A, Yang Jeong Yun, Faye Adam S, Patel Amit, Hur Chin, Leiman David A
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Potassium competitive acid blockers (PCABs) are superior to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for healing of Los Angeles (LA) class C/D erosive esophagitis and are approved for nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) given their efficacy measured by heartburn-free days. However, they are more expensive than PPIs. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of PCABs compared with PPIs for the management of GERD.
METHODS: A decision tree was constructed for the base case of a patient with GERD. We tested scenarios in which nonerosive reflux disease, LA A/B, or LA C/D esophagitis was present, comparing PCABs with PPIs as first-line therapy, including step up therapy and/or class switching if symptoms persisted. Using publicly available cost estimates, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were compared using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY from a societal perspective at 6 months.
RESULTS: The cost of PCABs for GERD was $3,240 more than PPIs, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $144,208/QALY. When evaluating GERD phenotypes separately, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was consistently over our willingness-to-pay threshold. One-way analyses showed the most influential parameters were PCAB cost and efficacy for heartburn-free days. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis favored PPIs 71.7% out of 100,000 iterations. Reducing one-week costs to below $91 would make PCABs a cost effective first-line strategy across all GERD phenotypes.
DISCUSSION: Despite PCAB efficacy, PPIs are a cost-effective strategy for GERD treatment, and can be positioned ahead of PCAB escalation on this basis. Reducing PCAB costs or accepting a higher willingness-to-pay threshold would influence this finding, although PCABs may be favored in some current situations as evidenced by probabilistic sensitivity results.
METHODS: A decision tree was constructed for the base case of a patient with GERD. We tested scenarios in which nonerosive reflux disease, LA A/B, or LA C/D esophagitis was present, comparing PCABs with PPIs as first-line therapy, including step up therapy and/or class switching if symptoms persisted. Using publicly available cost estimates, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were compared using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY from a societal perspective at 6 months.
RESULTS: The cost of PCABs for GERD was $3,240 more than PPIs, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $144,208/QALY. When evaluating GERD phenotypes separately, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was consistently over our willingness-to-pay threshold. One-way analyses showed the most influential parameters were PCAB cost and efficacy for heartburn-free days. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis favored PPIs 71.7% out of 100,000 iterations. Reducing one-week costs to below $91 would make PCABs a cost effective first-line strategy across all GERD phenotypes.
DISCUSSION: Despite PCAB efficacy, PPIs are a cost-effective strategy for GERD treatment, and can be positioned ahead of PCAB escalation on this basis. Reducing PCAB costs or accepting a higher willingness-to-pay threshold would influence this finding, although PCABs may be favored in some current situations as evidenced by probabilistic sensitivity results.