Omeprazole vs. Pantoprazole for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a clinical and pharmacoeconomic analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v13i10.46988Keywords:
Intensive Care Units, Gastrointestinal bleeding, Proton pump inhibitors, Cost-minimization analysis.Abstract
Objective: To compare the use of Omeprazole and Pantoprazole in the context of prophylaxis of acute gastric mucosal injury from the perspective of clinical outcomes and pharmacoeconomics in the intensive care setting in Brazil. Method: A retrospective cohort and pharmacoeconomic study was conducted in the Intensive Care Units (ICU) of a high-complexity hospital in the Northeast region of Brazil, using the years 2021 and 2022 as the reference period. The primary outcome assessed was the incidence of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Secondary outcomes included ICU length of stay, 90-day mortality in the ICU, and incidence of adverse events related to acid suppression: ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Additionally, a pharmacoeconomic study was performed using a cost-minimization analysis. Results: There were no significant differences in the incidence of UGIB between the groups (2.6% vs. 3.8%, p-value = 0.999), nor in the incidence of VAP (15.4% vs. 20.5%, p-value = 0.999), CDI (2.6% vs. 1.3%, p-value = 0.989), ICU length of stay (p-value = 0.519), and 90-day ICU mortality (30.8% vs. 24.4%, p-value = 0.370). However, Omeprazole was found to be less costly than Pantoprazole, both during the study period (Cost savings – min/max: $13,351.15/$16,398.45) and in current projections (Cost savings – min/max: $17,119.02/$21,257.68). Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that Omeprazole and Pantoprazole have similar safety and efficacy profiles for the prophylaxis of acute gastric mucosal injury. Considering the lower associated costs, we propose adopting Omeprazole as the preferred medication in this context.
Downloads
References
Alhazzani, W., Alenezi, F., Jaeschke, R. Z., Moayyedi, P., & Cook, D. J. (2013). Proton pump inhibitors versus histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Critical care medicine, 41(3), 693-705.
Alshamsi, F., Belley-Cote, E., Cook, D., Almenawer, S. A., Alqahtani, Z., Perri, D. et al. (2016). Efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Critical Care, 20, 1-12.
Andrade, M. V., Marinho, C., Nunes, L., & Colares, F. (2024). Price setting in the Brazilian private health insurance sector. International Journal of Health Economics and Management, 24(1), 57-80.
Bagdasarian, N., Rao, K., & Malani, P. N. (2015). Diagnosis and treatment of Clostridium difficile in adults: a systematic review. Jama, 313(4), 398-408.
Barbateskovic, M., Marker, S., Granholm, A., Anthon, C. T., Krag, M., Jakobsen, J. C. et al. (2019). Stress ulcer prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors or histamin-2 receptor antagonists in adult intensive care patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Intensive care medicine, 45, 143-158.
Barletta, J. F., Bruno, J. J., Buckley, M. S., & Cook, D. J. (2016). Stress ulcer prophylaxis. Critical care medicine, 44(7), 1395-1405.
Brasil. Controladoria Geral da União. Portal da Transparência: Saúde.
Finkenstedt, A., Berger, M. M., & Joannidis, M. (2020). Stress ulcer prophylaxis: Is mortality a useful endpoint?. Intensive care medicine, 46, 2058-2060.
Hammond, D. A., Kathe, N., Shah, A., & Martin, B. C. (2017). Cost‐effectiveness of histamine2 receptor antagonists versus proton pump inhibitors for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients. Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy, 37(1), 43-53.
Javed, M., Ali, M. H., Tanveer, M. S., & Tanveer, M. H. (2020). Omeprazole vs lansoprazole in the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease: A systematic literature review. Journal of Medical Research and Innovation, 4(2), e000204-e000204.
Kaviani, M. J., Hashemi, M. R., Kazemifar, A. R., Roozitalab, S., Mostaghni, A. A., Merat, S. et al. (2003). Effect of oral omeprazole in reducing re‐bleeding in bleeding peptic ulcers: a prospective, double‐blind, randomized, clinical trial. Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics, 17(2), 211-216.
Krag, M., Marker, S., Perner, A., Wetterslev, J., Wise, M. P., Schefold, J. C. et al. (2018). Pantoprazole in patients at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU. New England Journal of Medicine, 379(23), 2199-2208.
Laine, L., DeVault, K., Katz, P., Mitev, S., Lowe, J., Hunt, B., & Spechler, S. (2023). Vonoprazan versus lansoprazole for healing and maintenance of healing of erosive esophagitis: a randomized trial. Gastroenterology, 164(1), 61-71.
Li, F., Liu, H., Zhang, L., Huang, X., Liu, Y., Li, B. et al. (2022). Effects of gastric acid secretion inhibitors for ventilator-associated pneumonia. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 13, 898422.
MacLaren, R. (2002). A review of stress ulcer prophylaxis. Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 15(2), 147-157.
Marker, S., Perner, A., Wetterslev, J., Krag, M., Lange, T., Wise, M. P. et al. (2019). Pantoprazole prophylaxis in ICU patients with high severity of disease: a post hoc analysis of the placebo-controlled SUP-ICU trial. Intensive care medicine, 45, 609-618.
Neumann, I., Letelier, L. M., Rada, G., Claro, J. C., Martin, J., Howden, C. W. et al. (2013). Comparison of different regimens of proton pump inhibitors for acute peptic ulcer bleeding. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (6).
Oliveira, R. C. C. D., Malafaia, O., Tabushi, F. I., Naufel Junior, C. R., Lourenco, E. S., & Tabushi, F. Y. (2022). Intensive care unit prescriptions must fit risk factors to prevent stress ulcer bleeding. ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo), 34, e1587.
Pereira, A. S., Shitsuka, D. M., Parreira, F. J., & Shitsuka, R. (2018). Metodologia da pesquisa científica.
Pereira, F. A., Fábio Filho, M. H. S., de Azevedo, A. R., de Oliveira, G. L., Flores-Ortiz, R., Valencia, L. I. O. et al.2022). Profile of COVID-19 in Brazil—risk factors and socioeconomic vulnerability associated with disease outcome: retrospective analysis of population-based registers. BMJ Global Health, 7(12), e009489.
Reynolds, P. M., & MacLaren, R. (2019). Re‐evaluating the utility of stress ulcer prophylaxis in the critically ill patient: a clinical scenario‐based meta‐analysis. Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy, 39(3), 408-420.
Ribeiro, R. A., Neyeloff, J. L., Itria, A., Santos, V. C. C., Vianna, C. M. D. M., Silva, E. N. D. et al. (2016). Diretriz metodológica para estudos de avaliação econômica de tecnologias em saúde no Brasil.
Saeed, M., Bass, S., & Chaisson, N. F. (2022). Which ICU patients need stress ulcer prophylaxis?. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, 89(7), 363-367.
Shitsuka, R. et al. (2016). Matemática fundamental para tecnologia. (3ed.). Editora Erica.
Stanley, A. J., & Laine, L. (2019). Management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Bmj, 364.
Sukengtyas, D. A. T., Andayani, T. M., & Budiarti, L. E. (2017). Effectifity and Cost Analysis of Omeprazole and Pantoprazole for Stress Related Mucosal Disease Prophylaxis in ICU. JURNAL MANAJEMEN DAN PELAYANAN FARMASI (Journal of Management and Pharmacy Practice), 7(2), 57-64.
Van Diepen, S., Coulson, T., Wang, X., Opgenorth, D., Zuege, D. J., Harris, J. et al. (2022). Efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors versus histamine-2 receptor blockers in the cardiac surgical population: insights from the PEPTIC trial. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 62(2), ezac124.
van Hout, B. A., Klok, R. M., Brouwers, J. R., & Postma, M. J. (2003). A pharmacoeconomic comparison of the efficacy and costs of pantoprazole and omeprazole for the treatment of peptic ulcer or gastroesophageal reflux disease in the Netherlands. Clinical therapeutics, 25(2), 635-646.
Vieira, S. (2021). Introdução à bioestatística. (6.ed.). Ed. GEN/Guanabar Koogan.
Wang, Z., Sun, R., Sheng, Y., Qu, S., Dong, L., & Wu, B. (2022). Cost-effectiveness analysis of vonoprazan versus proton pump inhibitors in the treatment of reflux esophagitis in China. Annals of Translational Medicine, 10(8).
Ye, Z., Blaser, A. R., Lytvyn, L., Wang, Y., Guyatt, G. H., Mikita, J. S. et al.. (2020). Gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis for critically ill patients: a clinical practice guideline. Bmj, 368.
Young, P. J., Bagshaw, S. M., Forbes, A. B., Nichol, A. D., Wright, S. E., Bailey, M. et al. (2020). Effect of stress ulcer prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors vs histamine-2 receptor blockers on in-hospital mortality among ICU patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation: the PEPTIC randomized clinical trial. Jama, 323(7), 616-626.
Zhang, J., Ge, L., Hill, M., Liang, Y., Xie, J., Cui, D. et al. (2019). Standard-dose proton pump inhibitors in the initial non-eradication treatment of duodenal ulcer: systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 9, 1512.
Zhou, X., Fang, H., Xu, J., Chen, P., Hu, X., Chen, B. et al. (2019). Stress ulcer prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors or histamine 2 receptor antagonists in critically ill adults-a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis. BMC gastroenterology, 19, 1-14.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Mateus Augusto Barbosa de Negreiros Costa Lima; Mario Diego Teles Correia; Natalya Maia de Souza Vicente
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
