Search

Background: Helicobacter pylori is regarded as an important cause of both peptic ulcer and chronic gastritis. In particular, seropositivity is highest in patients with duodenal ulcer. No studies have determined whether there are differences in the direct medical costs associated with gastric/duodenal ulcer or inflammation, between seropositive and seronegative patients., Objective: To examine the relationship between seropositivity for H. pylori and outpatient visits and direct medical costs for gastric/duodenal ulcer or inflammation in Japan from the perspective of the payor and patients., Methods: Participants were males (n = 653) who worked for an agricultural co-operative in Fukuoka Prefecture, attended an annual health examination (including a written lifestyle and medical survey), belonged to the same health insurance society consistently for 4 years from April 1996 to March 2000, and provided a blood sample. The survey asked about lifestyle, including smoking and drinking, and past medical history. We retrospectively analysed the annual number of outpatient visits per person and outpatient medical cost (Yen, 2000 values) per person for visits relating to gastric or duodenal ulcer or inflammation using International Classification of Diseases (9th edition) -- Clinical Modification codes. We assessed for potential confounding factors using analysis of covariance and the chi-square test., Results: The annual outpatient incidence of disease, the number of visits to physicians, and the medical costs for gastric or duodenal ulcer or inflammation were about 2-fold greater in individuals with antibodies to H. pylori compared with those without antibodies., Conclusion: Population-based studies and/or randomised controlled clinical trials that target high-risk groups and account for the unique way in which data are collected in Japan are needed to determine whether medical costs for gastric and duodenal ulcer might be reduced by treating asymptomatic patients who have antibodies to H. pylori.

Pharmacoeconomic studies can help decision-makers choose the most efficient drug treatments in our internationally cost-constrained healthcare environment. However, perceptions of bias about the nature of many economic evaluations limit the usefulness of pharmacoeconomic data to decision-makers. In an effort to increase the credibility of pharmacoeconomic studies, several groups have developed methodological guidelines, and one has developed ethical guidelines for these evaluations. In this article, we evaluate issues related to the publication of the results of pharmacoeconomic studies. Pharmacoeconomics is a true science (and should be so treated), rather than a form of marketing. Pharmacoeconomic studies must undergo the same peer review process and be published in serious research journals, as are other types of scientific investigations. Investigators should attempt to publish the results of pharmacoeconomic studies, even (and, perhaps, especially) when the results are not favourable to the sponsor. However, there are acceptable reasons to withhold publication of 'negative' results. For example, when methodological problems plague a study, or when the study addresses an investigational drug not likely to be approved, then researchers are justified in giving up on publication, if they so choose. Similarly, feasibility studies to test methods of data collection or analyses conducted very early in the drug development process need not always be published. Nonetheless, access to all important investigations--regardless of whether the results are positive or negative--will become more important as healthcare becomes more evidence-based, as decisions have impact on large populations of people, and as those in charge of formularies actually begin to use cost-effectiveness analysis to help make choices among competing drugs.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical and economic effects of 2 clinical strategies for treating severe (grade II and above) erosive oesophagitis or poorly responsive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. A single-blind, randomised controlled trial of up to 8 weeks' duration was undertaken comparing omeprazole with ranitidine plus metoclopramide in patients with severe and symptomatic erosive oesophagitis (endoscopic grade II and above). Two cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated: cost per healed patient and cost per symptom-free day. The study perspective was that of the payer or insurer of medical care. Healing rates were significantly higher among omeprazole-treated patients than among those who received ranitidine/metoclopramide at 4 weeks (68.5% vs 30.4%; p < 0.01) and overall (81.5% vs 45.7%; p < 0.01). Overall, mean gastrointestinal-related direct medical costs per healed patient were lower for the omeprazole group ($US189.60) than for the ranitidine/metoclopramide group ($US319.28). The incremental cost of an additional cure with omeprazole compared with ranitidine/metoclopramide was $US24.05. The overall average cost per symptom-free day was lower in the omeprazole group ($US7.88) than in the ranitidine/metoclopramide group ($US10.81). The incremental cost to obtain an additional symptom-free day with omeprazole, compared with ranitidine/metoclopramide, was $US1.41. In conclusion, superior efficacy at comparable cost is achieved by omeprazole compared with ranitidine/metoclopramide in the treatment of patients with severe erosive oesophagitis.