IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Intravenous Esomeprazole: A Pharmacoeconomic Profile of its Use in the Prevention of Recurrent Peptic Ulcer Bleeding

  • Gillian M. Keating

    (Adis, a Wolters Kluwer Business, Auckland, New Zealand)

Registered author(s):

    Intravenous esomeprazole (Nexium) is approved in Europe for the prevention of rebleeding following therapeutic endoscopy for acute bleeding gastric or duodenal ulcers. In a pivotal clinical trial, patients with peptic ulcer bleeding and high-risk stigmata who received intravenous esomeprazole for 72 hours following endoscopic haemostatic therapy were significantly less likely than those receiving intravenous placebo to experience recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding at days 3, 7 and 30. In addition, the need for repeat endoscopic haemostatic therapy, the total amount of blood transfused and the number of additional hospital days required because of rebleeding were significantly lower in intravenous esomeprazole recipients than in intravenous placebo recipients. All patients received oral esomeprazole for 27 days following intravenous study drug administration. Intravenous esomeprazole was generally well tolerated in the pivotal trial, with infusion-site reactions being among the most commonly reported adverse events. Two pharmacoeconomic analyses conducted from a healthcare payer perspective used decision-tree models with 30-day time horizons to examine the cost effectiveness and cost utility of intravenous esomeprazole in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers who had undergone endoscopic haemostatic therapy. With regard to the incremental cost per bleed averted, intravenous esomeprazole was predicted to be dominant in Spain and cost effective in Sweden and the US compared with no intravenous esomeprazole. Efficacy results and resource utilization data from the pivotal clinical trial were inputted into this model, and the results of the analysis were generally robust to plausible variations in key variables. In the cost-utility analysis, which was conducted in the UK and is available as an abstract and poster, esomeprazole was considered to be the most cost-effective treatment alternative, compared with omeprazole or pantoprazole. For this analysis, clinical outcomes data were obtained from a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison (given the absence of head-to-head trial data), and utility values were proxied from the literature. In conclusion, intravenous esomeprazole prevents peptic ulcer rebleeding in patients who have undergone endoscopic haemostatic therapy. Pharmacoeconomic analyses support the use of intravenous esomeprazole following endoscopic haemostatic therapy in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding and high-risk stigmata.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal PharmacoEconomics.

    Volume (Year): 29 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 6 ()
    Pages: 535-543

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:29:y:2011:i:6:p:535-543
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:29:y:2011:i:6:p:535-543. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.