Journal of clinical gastroenterology · 2023
Health Care Cost Analysis of PPI or P-CAB-First Treatment in Patients With Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Miwa Hiroto, Shiotani Akiko, Takeda Masayoshi, Eda Masahiro, Kato Toshiaki, Yajima Toshitaka
Аннотация
GOALS: The aim was to examine actual health care cost in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) who were initiated on proton pump inhibitor (PPI) or potassium-competitive acid blocker (P-CAB) as first-line therapy in Japanese real-world clinical settings.
BACKGROUND: To date, cost-utility evaluation of acid-suppressants treatment in Japan has only been conducted by model analysis.
STUDY: A cost utilization analysis was performed using a Japanese nationwide hospital-based claim database by extracting patients with GERD initiated on either PPI or P-CAB (242,102 pairs) and esomeprazole (EPZ) or P-CAB (241,825 pairs). Health care costs were compared in each comparison cohort with propensity-score matched pairs. The switching rates of initial acid-suppressants were also examined.
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were well-balanced after matching. The 3-year mean cumulative GERD-related and hospitalization costs per patient were ¥142,620 and ¥122,444 in PPI-first and P-CAB-first treatment groups, and ¥105,263 and ¥121,958 in EPZ-first and P-CAB-first treatment groups, respectively. Most hospitalization costs were non-GERD related in all the groups. The switching rates of PPI to P-CAB and P-CAB to PPI in 12 months were 7.5% and 20.2%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In this propensity-score matched analysis, health care cost was higher in patients with GERD initiated on PPI than in those initiated on P-CAB mainly owing to non-GERD-related hospitalization cost, whereas it was lower in those initiated on EPZ than in those initiated on P-CAB. When considering health care costs except hospitalization costs, PPI-first treatment was less expensive than P-CAB-first treatment. Low switching rate from PPI to P-CAB in the real-world practice may partially explain the discrepancy.
BACKGROUND: To date, cost-utility evaluation of acid-suppressants treatment in Japan has only been conducted by model analysis.
STUDY: A cost utilization analysis was performed using a Japanese nationwide hospital-based claim database by extracting patients with GERD initiated on either PPI or P-CAB (242,102 pairs) and esomeprazole (EPZ) or P-CAB (241,825 pairs). Health care costs were compared in each comparison cohort with propensity-score matched pairs. The switching rates of initial acid-suppressants were also examined.
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were well-balanced after matching. The 3-year mean cumulative GERD-related and hospitalization costs per patient were ¥142,620 and ¥122,444 in PPI-first and P-CAB-first treatment groups, and ¥105,263 and ¥121,958 in EPZ-first and P-CAB-first treatment groups, respectively. Most hospitalization costs were non-GERD related in all the groups. The switching rates of PPI to P-CAB and P-CAB to PPI in 12 months were 7.5% and 20.2%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In this propensity-score matched analysis, health care cost was higher in patients with GERD initiated on PPI than in those initiated on P-CAB mainly owing to non-GERD-related hospitalization cost, whereas it was lower in those initiated on EPZ than in those initiated on P-CAB. When considering health care costs except hospitalization costs, PPI-first treatment was less expensive than P-CAB-first treatment. Low switching rate from PPI to P-CAB in the real-world practice may partially explain the discrepancy.