CURRENT THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH

VOLUME 70, NUMBER 4, AUGUST 2009

Therapeutic Management of Uncomplicated Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in in 2005: Potential Cost Savings of Omeprazole Substitution

Stephane Mouly, MD, PhD1; Agnes Charlemagne2; Philippe Lejeunne, MD3; and Francis Fagnani2

1Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris, Universite Paris-Diderot - Paris VII, Unit of Therapeutic Research, Internal Medicine Department, Lariboisiere Hospital, Paris, France; 2Cemka-Eval, Bourg la Reine, France; and 3Thales, Boulogne, France

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) cost the French sys• tem >€1 billion in 2005, and ~50% of PPI prescriptions were for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe the current use of PPIs for GERD, to estimate the total annual costs of treatment, and to evaluate the economic impact of the various possible substitutions among PPIs available for this indication in France. METHODS: Data from a sample ofpatients aged ::0-20 years who visited their gen• eral practitioner (GP) at least once in 2005 for uncomplicated, symptomatic GERD were retrieved from the Thales database (a group of 1200 representative GPs con• nected to a computerized network). Costs of the prescriptions presented for reim• bursement and costs of those reimbursed by the French health care insurance system were analyzed. We then evaluated the economic consequences of replacing full-dose generic omeprazole (after substitution from brand-name omeprazole by the pharmacists) with other compounds that are indicated for mild symptoms at half dose (ie, lansopra• zole 15 mg, pantoprazole 20 mg, rabeprazole 10 mg, and esomeprazole 20 mg). The results were adjusted to account for the proportions ofpatients who had full health care coverage and the treatment duration as reported in the database. Results are presented from the perspective of the French health care insurance system. RESULTS: In 2005, a total of 122,571 patients (mean age, 55.7 years; 45.5% men; 13.8% with a history ofat least 1 gastrointestinal disorder) met the inclusion criteria. Extrapolated to the French population, this sample corresponded to ~ 5.7 million peo• ple (ie, 13% of the adult population who visited a GP during the year). PPIs were prescribed as first-line treatment for GERD in 84.1 % of the consultations (14.3% in association with other antiulcer drugs). Omeprazole, as a proprietary or generic drug, was prescribed most often (78.9%) and at full dose (20 mg), while other compounds

This paper was presented as a poster at the Annual Meeting of the Association d'Epidemiologie de Langue Fran~aise ( Epidemiology Association), May 24-25, 2007, Paris, France. Accepted for publication March 2, 2009. doi: 10.1016/j .curtheres.2009.07.001 © 2009 Excerpta Medica Inc. All rights reserved. 001l-393X/$ - see front matter

282 s. MOULY ET AL.

(lansoprazole, pantoprazole, rabeprazole, and esomeprazole) were prescribed at half dose in 64.3% of cases. The extrapolated annual cost of PPIs reimbursed for this in• dication was €465 .02 million at a mean reimbursement level of72 .7%. Brand-name omeprazole still accounted for ~ 11 % of the total cost reimbursed. Complete replace• ment of brand-name omeprazole with its generic counterpart would have reduced costs by €18.35 million (a decrease of4.3% in the total reimbursed expenditure). The switch from generic full-dose omeprazole to a half dose of other PPIs would have al• lowed further savings ranging from €2.59 million (with lansoprazole) to €13.19 million (with pantoprazole). CONCLUSION: In accordance with recent recommendations for the treatment of uncomplicated GERD and based on the 2006 PPI pricing, switching from branded full-dose omeprazole to generic omeprazole or to the use of half doses of other PPIs may allow cost savings in France. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2009;70:282-298) © 2009 Excerpta Medica Inc. KEY WORDS: gastroesophageal reflux disease, proton pump inhibitors, pharma• coeconomics, cost savings.

INTRODUCTION Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common conditions ob• served in general medical practice and gastroenterology. 1 The condition may manifest itself as peptic esophagitis and lead to complications such as esophageal ulcer, esopha• geal stenosis, gastrointestinal bleeding, or metaplasia of the lower esophagus. Alarm signs include weight loss, dysphagia, gastrointestinal bleeding, and anemia. GERD in adult patients represents a real problem and is a major source of expen• diture for the French health care insurance system. The prevalence of GERD is 10% to 30% in the adult population of Western Europe, and 2 recent investigations in French patients and general practitioners (GPs) suggested that it could be increasing.1,2 The frequency of the main symptom ofGERD, heartburn, in the Western population is 5% to 45% (ie, 5%-10% for a daily episode; 30%--45% for at least 1 episode each month). GERD is often a chronic disease, and two thirds of patients continue to complain of symptoms after 5 to 10 years. In the general population, mild symptoms occurring at least twice weekly, or moderate to severe symptoms occurring at least once weekly, are often considered disturbing to patients. One quarter ofadults experience nocturnal heartburn, and, depending on the studies, 23% to 81 % of patients with GERD say that their sleep is disturbed by GERD, with a consequent alteration in their quali• ty of life as evaluated using general scales (eg, the 12-item Short Form Health Sur• vey) or specific scales (eg, the Quality of Life Questionnaire in Gastroesophageal Reflux). 2-4 In accordance with the conventional classification of GERD-related conditions, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are approved for use in esophagitis at full dose and in GERD at half dose.s A review article reported that the various PPIs display similar dose-response relationships in terms of similar potencies and efficacies when given at

283 CURRENT THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH

the same milligram doses.s Although optimal dosages of omeprazole,* lansoprazole,t pan• toprazole,+ and esomeprazole,§ are ~30 to 40 mg/d for the acute treatment of moderate to severe GERD, lower daily dosages of lansoprazole, pantoprazole, and esomeprazole of ~ 15 to 20 mg/d may be sufficient for uncomplicated GERD and in maintenance therapy, according to this review. More than halfofprescriptions for uncomplicated GERD are ad• ministered at full dose, even though lansoprazole, pantoprazole, rabeprazole,11 and esomepra• zole have been approved for use in the treatment of uncomplicated GERD at half dose. Treatment courses range from 2 weeks for pantoprazole to up to 4 to 6 weeks for omeprazole or lansoprazole.S- ll Only omeprazole has also been approved for use in GERD at full dose "in the event of insufficient response at the dose of 10 mg ofomeprazole daily."9 An expert meeting held in January 1999 in France defined the modalities that should be used to treat GERD in adults. 12 In patients aged < 50 years, the risk of se• vere esophagitis or neoplastic lesions is low; therefore, patients with typical symptoms (heartburn or acid regurgitation) and without any alarm signs can be diagnosed with GERD in the absence ofendoscopy. 12,13 In these patients, treatment is indicated with antacids or histamine (H2) receptor inhibitors at low doses only when symptoms are infrequent. However, symptoms ofGERD are often better controlled by PPIs than by antacids.s,6 If symptoms occur once weekly or several times weekly, continuous treat• ment is indicated with a half-dose PPI for 4 weeks.S,12,13 The first 2 PPIs to be approved in France for use in GERD were omeprazole 10 mg and lansoprazole 15 mg in 1996; these were followed by pantoprazole 20 mg in 1999 and esomeprazole 20 mg in 2000.12 ,13 Omeprazole 20 mg and rabeprazole 10 mg were given Market Authorization extensions in 2001 and 2002, respectively. Generic omeprazole products have been available on the market since 2004. Since being placed on the market in 1989 with approval for non-GERD conditions, PPIs have represented a major expenditure and are the third most expensive class of medicinal products for the French health care insurance system, just behind cholesterol• lowering agents and drugs for arterial hypertension and cardiac insufficiency.l,12,13 In 2005, PPIs accounted for >€1 billion, or 5.7%, of the total expenditure on community• dispensed drugs. 13 In a Dutch study, the cost of omeprazole (90% of the total market share of PPIs in the Netherlands) for all indications increased from €68 million to €230 million between 1993 and 2000.14 The increase in PPI cost is partly linked to the progressive extension of their reimbursable indications and, in particular, the in• clusion of GERD, which now represents about half of PPI prescriptions in France (2006 Thales database; http://www.thalesgroup.com).12.13 Between 2002 and 2005, the number ofPPIs sold increased by a mean of 10% per year, from 36 million boxes in 2002 to 48 million in 2005. Furthermore, together with the Spanish, the French are the biggest consumers of PPIs in Europe.

*Trademark: Mopral® (AstraZeneca, Rueil-Malmaison, France). t Trademarks: Lanzor® (sanofi-aventis, Paris, France); Ogast® (Takeda, Puteaux, France). t Trademarks: Inipomp® (sanofi-aventis, Paris, France); Eupantol® (Altana Pharma, Le Mee-sur-Seine, France). § Trademark: Inexium® (AstraZeneca, Rueil-Malmaison, France). II Trademark: Pariet® (Janssen-Cilag, Issy-les-Moulineaux, France).

284 S. MOULY ET AL.

The medical profession is increasingly being encouraged to comply more closely with clinical practice recommendations on the appropriate use of medicinal products, and it was within this context that we conducted a study on the management of GERD in general medical practice in France, using 2005 data from the Thales data• base. The aims of this study were to describe the current use of PPls for symptomatic GERD in general practice and to estimate the total annual costs to the French health care insurance system of the management of symptomatic GERD with the various PPI products marketed in France. Finally, we performed an economic evaluation of the various possible substitutions among the PPls available for this indication, starting with brand-name omeprazole.

METHODS DATA SOURCE Data used for this study were extracted from the Thales database, which consists of the medical records of patients collected by 1200 GPs connected to a computerized French network. These GPs are representative, in terms of age, sex, and geographic distribution, of all G Ps in metropolitan France, allowing extrapolation of results to the 56,000 GPs in France. 1s The system used to identify the physicians and consulta• tions made it possible to establish a linkage between successive visits by a patient to a particular GP in the network. This database thus provided the medical histories of a cohort of > 1.2 million patients, including all prescriptions and associated diagnoses.

PATIENT SELECTION Because all data accessed were delinked from patients' identifiers, ethics committee approval was not required in the present study; a waiver ofconsent was obtained from the ethics committee before the start of data collection. Patients aged ::0-20 years who had visited a GP from the network at least once in 2005 and had received a diagnosis of symptomatic, uncomplicated GERD (gastroesophageal reflux or simple GERD) or corresponding symptoms (esophagogastric reflux, esophageal burning, esophageal pain, heartburn, postural heartburn, or regurgitation)1-3,S were selected from the Thales database and included in the analysis. Selected patients had no serious signs such as weight loss, dysphagia, gastrointestinal bleeding, or anemia. Patients with esophagitis with or without signs of bleeding, as identified by upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, or with esophageal or gastric cancer were not included in the economic analysis. The following data were collected for all patients who met the inclusion criteria: sex, age, number of consultations with a diagnosis (or symptoms) of GERD (simple GERD), prescription (or not) for a PPI during these visits, and comorbid condi• tions. For the subgroup of patients who were monitored by physicians for at least 1 year, the number of PPI prescriptions during the previous year for the GERD indica• tion was also recorded. We did not analyze low-dose aspirin or other NSAID intake.

COST ANALYSES Cost analyses were limited to pharmaceutical costs related to the prescription of PPls for uncomplicated GERD in general medical practice. Two types of costs were

285 CURRENT THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH

included: the costs of the prescriptions presented for reimbursement and the costs currently reimbursed by the French health care insurance system. Our estimates were initially based on prescriptions and not on the pharmacist's billing form. However, pharmacists generally substitute some of these prescriptions, and we did not have direct access to this information. On the basis of the various data available comparing prescriptions versus effective sales at the pharmacy (http://www.gie-gers.fr/actualites/ cC-Een.php3 and http://www.imshealth.com/portal/site/imshealth). we assumed that for ~ 50% of prescriptions for brand-name omeprazole, the pharmacists substituted generic omeprazole. Consequently, we integrated this substitution into our cost cal• culations. We hypothesized that when pharmacists did switch, treatment durations remained unchanged. In our estimate of the pharmaceutical cost of GERD for the year 2005, we used unit prices that were current on December 31, 2005. However, in our study about possible substitutions between products, we used the current prices (as of Decem• ber 31, 2006) to integrate the decline in esomeprazole price that was applicable from December 20, 2006, onward (Table 1). We evaluated the economic consequences of replacing full-dose generic omeprazole (after substitution by community pharmacists, as estimated previously) with other compounds at half dose. This evaluation was per• formed directly on the basis of the number of prescriptions observed in 2005 in the Thales panel, extrapolated to all French GPs. The principle of this calculation con• sisted of successively replacing the total extrapolated cost of prescriptions of full• dose generic omeprazole for GERD in 2005 with the corresponding mean cost of prescriptions of other compounds at half dose. We then adjusted these results to take into account the proportions of patients who had full coverage (100% reim• bursement) by the French health care insurance system as well as the treatment duration as reported in the database.

RESULTS DEMOGRAPHIC DATA The study included 122,571 patients listed in the Thales database who met the inclusion criteria. After extrapolation to the entire French population, this number corresponded to ~5.7 million patients, or 13% of the total population aged ;;,20 years who had consulted 1 of the physicians from the panel at least once in 2005; the num• ber was also consistent with the epidemiologic data available on the prevalence of GERD.1-3 Overall, 54.5% were women and 45.5% were men, and the mean age of the patients was 55.7 years. The prevalence of symptomatic GERD ranged from a low of 5.8% at ages 20 to 29 years to a high of 24.1 % at ages 50 to 59 years. Among these patients, 11.8% had full (ie, 100%) health care coverage by the French health care insur• ance system for chronic illness ("affections de longue duree"), pooling all causes. The group of patients treated for GERD with PPIs represented 271,214 consulta• tions, or 84.1% of the total number of consultations analyzed. In this group, the frequencies of risk factors were as follows: arterial hypertension (33.7%), non-insulin• dependent diabetes mellitus (8.6%), coronary heart disease (7.9%), active smoking (7.8%), HDL-C <0.4 giL(2.5%), and a family history of cardiovascular disease (2%).

286 S. MOULY ET AL.

Table I. Proton pump inhibitors available in France: dose, brand names, and unit prices as of December 31, 2006.

Half Dose or Prices, € Drug Dose, mg Full Dose Brand Names (28-Pill Boxes)

Omeprazole 10 Half dose Mopral®* 22.60 Zoltum®* 22.60 Generic 15.46 20 Full dose Mopral® 41.85 Zoltum® 41.85 Generic 24.47

Lansoprazole 15 Half dose Lanzor®t 22.82 (30-pill box) Ogast®t 22.82 (30-pill box) 30 Full dose Lanzor® 39.36 Ogast® 39.36

Pantoprazole 20 Half dose Eupantol®§ 21.56 Inipomp®t 21.56 40 Full dose Eupantol® 40.28 Inipomp® 40.28

Rabeprazole 10 Half dose Pariet®11 20.50 20 Full dose 37.76

Esomeprazole 20 Half dose Inexium®* 28.71 40 Full dose 33.76

*AstraZeneca, Rueil-Malmaison, France. t sanofi-aventis, Paris, France. t Takeda, Puteaux, France. § Altana Pharma, Le Mee-sur-Seine, France. II Janssen-Cilag, Issy-Ies-Moulineaux, France.

A history of at least 1 gastrointestinal disorder was observed in 13.8% of patients treated with PPIs and included irritable bowel syndrome (7.1 %), gastritis (4.7%), esophagitis 0.4%), gastric ulcer (1.0%), duodenal ulcer (0.5%), and gastroduodenal ulcer (0.2%). Some patients had more than one condition.

CONSULTATIONS AND TREATMENTS PRESCRIBED In 2005, the 122,571 patients identified visited their GP a mean of 7.5 times (pooling all reasons). The annual number of consultations for GERD varied from 1 to > 10 per patient, and >84% of patients (ie, 103,379) consulted their GP between 1 and 4 times for symptoms related to GERD (Table II). Ofthe 322,633 consultations for GERD recorded in 2005, a total of 84.1 % resulted in a PPI prescription, of which 69.8% were for a PPI alone and 14.3% were for a PPI in association with other anti• ulcer drugs (Table III). For the rest of the 322,633 consultations for GERD, only

287 CURRENT THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH

Table II. Distribution of patients according to the number of general-practitioner (GP) consultations for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in 2005 in France.*

No. of GP No. of Consultations for GERD Patients %

1 55,468 45.3 2 24,231 19.8 3-4 23,680 19.2 5-6 10,481 8.6 7-8 4016 3.3 9-10 2119 1.7 >10 2576 2.1 Total 122,571 100

*Includes patients with at least 1 consultation in the Thales database (http://www.thalesgroup.com; Thales, Boulogne, France).

3.5% resulted in a prescription for antiulcer drugs other than a PPI, and in 12.4% of cases, no drug was prescribed for GERD. As shown in Figure 1, omeprazole (brand name or generic) was the most frequently prescribed PPI, mainly at full doses (78.9% [23.2/29.4} of cases). Omeprazole repre• sented 29.4% of all prescribed PPIs, followed by pantoprazole (22.3%), lansoprazole (20.8%), esomeprazole (14.0%), and rabeprazole (13.5%). Unlike omeprazole, the other PPIs (pantoprazole, lansoprazole, esomeprazole, and rabeprazole) were pre• scribed at half dose in 64.3% of cases (45.4170.6) (Figure 1). Patients took 1 tablet daily on average regardless of the dosing regimen (half or full dose). The mean treat• ment duration ranged from 41.0 days (with pantoprazole) to 50.7 days (with brand• name omeprazole) when given at half dose and from 39.5 days (pantoprazole) to 55.9 days (brand-name omeprazole) when given at full dose (Table IV). Among patients to whom omeprazole was prescribed, up to 31.3% had full health care coverage, com• pared with 7.8% to 17.6% of patients taking 1 of the other PPIs analyzed (Table IV). Among the 93,131 patients already being monitored by their GP for GERD during the previous year, 43.8% had already received at least 1 prescription for PPIs during that year (mean, 1.4). Switching between products was relatively rare. Indeed, PPI prescriptions were renewed with the same drug at the same dose in 58.6% to 81.5% of cases depending on the drug prescribed, with the exception ofgeneric omeprazole, which was renewed in only 29.2% of cases when taken at half dose and in 57.2% when taken at full dose (Table IV). When there was a change in PPI, it typically involved a change to another dose of the same drug, usually from the half dose to the full dose for omeprazole (brand name or generic), reflecting an intensification in treatment, and from the full dose to the half dose for the other compounds, reflecting a switch to maintenance therapy.

288 S. MOULY ET AL.

Table III. Number of general-practitioner consultations for gastroesophageal reflux dis• ease (GERD) and amount of proton pump inhibitors (PPls) prescribed in 2005 in France.*

Result of the Consultation No. of Consultations (%)

Consultations with a diagnosis of GERD 322,633 (100) Consultations with a PPI prescription alone 225,120 (69.8) Consultations with a prescription for PPls plus other medications 46,094 (14.3) PPI + antacids 15,867 (4.9) PPI + modulators of intestinal motility 15,354 (4.8) PPI + antiflatulents 7877 (2.4) PPI + other 6996 (2.2) Consultations with a prescription of medications other than PPls 11,312 (3.5) Antacids 4974 (1.5)

H2-receptor antagonists 1861 (0.6) Modulators of intestinal motility 1588 (0.5) Antacids + modulators of intestinal motility 911 (0.3) Antiflatulents 693 (0.2) Other 1285 (0.4) No prescription 40,107 (12.4)

H2 = histamine. *Thales database, 2005 (http://www.thalesgroup.com; Thales, Boulogne, France).

COST ANALYSIS By extrapolating the results of previous analyses (Thales database, data not shown) concerning prescriptions of PPIs for uncomplicated GERD in 2005 and integrating the substitutions by pharmacists, we estimated the total cost of PPI prescribing for GERD at €639.84 million. Of this total, €465.02 million was effectively reimbursed by the French health care insurance system, for a mean rate ofreimbursement of72.7%. We observed a fairly homogeneous distribution of costs for the various compounds, ranging from 13% to 19% of the total cost for each one, as well as a fairly even half• dose to full-dose distribution for each compound, with the exception of omeprazole. For omeprazole (brand name or generic), the full-dose prescription costs were ~4 to 10 times higher than the half-dose costs, especially for the generic product (2% at half dose vs 19% at full dose). In general, we found that the full-dose prescriptions were always more likely than the half-dose prescriptions to be reimbursed 100% (Table IV and Figure 2). Furthermore, the prescriptions of brand-name omeprazole were 100% reimbursed more frequently than the other compounds (Table IV and Figure 2). The corresponding patients (ie, those for whom omeprazole was prescribed) were older (mean age, 65 years, vs 55 years for the other compounds). The mean costs per prescription (full costs and reimbursements) according to drug product and dose are presented in Figure 2. The differences observed might be explained by several factors, including unit price of the products (Table 1), daily dose, and mean reimbursement rates.

289 CURRENT THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH

• Half dose o Full dose 16 15.4

~ ...... co c Q) 2 Q) 0...

Figure 1. Distribution in percentages of proton pump inhibitors prescribed in 2005 per product and dose for uncomplicated gastroesophageal reflux disease treated in general practice in France.

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION In 2005 and on the basis of the data analyzed in this study, there was still opportu• nity for substitution between brand-name omeprazole and generic omeprazole or the other available compounds because brand-name omeprazole still accounted for ~ 11 % of the total cost of drug products in the GERD indication (after substitutions by the pharmacists). Thus, in terms of the consumption observed in metropolitan France in 2005, completely replacing brand-name omeprazole with its generic counterpart at the same dosing regimen and for the same duration, based on the prices available on December 31, 2006, would have represented a savings of €18.35 million for the French health care insurance system (€21.2 million of the total cost). This savings represents a decrease of4.3% in the total amount of reimbursed expenditures. Figure 3 describes the potential annual cost savings for the French health care in• surance system from using the other PPIs in place of full-dose generic omeprazole, both with and without adjustment for the percentage ofpatients with full health care insurance coverage as mentioned in Table IV (prescriptions by GPs in 2005; retail prices as of December 31, 2006, in euros). As shown in Figure 3, an additional cost was associated with substituting full-dose omeprazole with half-dose esomeprazole

290 Table IV. Proton pump inhibitors (PPls) prescribed by general practitioners for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease in 2005 in France: dosing regimen, prescription renewal rate, prescription duration, and health care coverage.

Half-Dose PPI Full-Dose PPI

Renewal Prescription Full Health Care Renewal Prescription Full Health Care Rate, Duration, Coverage, Rate, Duration, Coverage, Medication % d % % d %

Omeprazole (brand name) 81.5 50.7 21.9 78.6 55.9 31.3 Omeprazole (generic) 29.2 41.8* 15.5 57.2 44.1* 20.0 Lansoprazole 65.3 44.3 8.1 65.5 47.2 12.2 Pantoprazole 58.6 41.0 7.8 59.7 39.5 11.2 Rabeprazole 62.8 45.9 7.8 65.6 45.3 12.3 Esomeprazole 59.7 44.9 11.0 63.3 45.4 17.6

*For generic omeprazole, this relates to dispensing after substitution by pharmacists.

en

3: o c ~ /II II) -I l> ..\0 r CURRENT THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH

• Mean cost reimbursed per prescription D Mean full cost per prescription A 100 90 80 70

§S 60 ...... (f) 50 0 u 40 39.0 37.9 .: 30 • 20 10 0 Brand-Name Esomeprazole Lansoprazole Rabeprazole Pantoprazole Generic Omeprazole Omeprazole

Half Dose

• Mean cost reimbursed per prescription D Mean full cost per prescription B 100 90 80 :: I

70 70.8 §S 60 ...... (f) 50 0 50.6 u 47.7 46.5 40 42.0 30 34.1 20 10 0 Brand-Name Lansoprazole Esomeprazole Rabeprazole Pantoprazole Generic Omeprazole Omeprazole

Full Dose

Figure 2. Mean reimbursed cost and full cost per proton pump inhibitor prescription given at (A) half dose and (B) full dose for gastroesophageal reflux disease in general practice in France after substitution by pharmacists (retail prices as of Decem• ber 31, 2005, in euros).

292 s. MOULY ET AL •

• Without adjustment for full health care coverage D With adjustment for full health care coverage 10

6,316,896

5 . : .

(j) Lansoprazole Pantoprazole Rabeprazole c 0 ------.--.-- o Esomeprazole E • 3S gj -5 u

-10

-13,188,097 -15

Figure 3. Potential annual cost savings for the French health care insurance system associated with the substitution of full-dose generic omeprazole with other proton pump inhibitors at half dose, without and with adjustment for the per• centage of patients with full health care coverage (prescriptions by general practitioners in 2005; retail prices as of December 31, 2006, in euros).

(+€2.72 million with adjustment and +€6.32 million without adjustment). In con• trast, savings were achieved by substituting half-dose lansoprazole (-€7.43 and -€2.59 million), half-dose pantoprazole (-€8.99 and -€13.19 million), and half-dose rabeprazole (-€10.55 and -€8.81 million). These findings were directly related to the differences in unit costs per prescription shown in Figure 2.

DISCUSSION The description of this population allowed us to ensure that we had indeed targeted patients with uncomplicated GERD. PPIs have become the first-line choice in France for the treatment of symptomatic, uncomplicated GERD (ie, without alarm signs) in adults, accounting for 84.1 % ofpatients at a given time during the year. For this indica• tion, brand-name or generic omeprazole is mainly prescribed at full dose (20 mg), whereas the other compounds (lansoprazole, pantoprazole, rabeprazole, and esomepra• zole) are prescribed mainly at half dose. As first-line drug therapy, the half dose is

293 CURRENT THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH

recommended for all the products, but in clinical practice, the full dose is used more often with omeprazole, in compliance with clinical trial findings.s-s Complete dose-for-dose substitution of brand-name omeprazole with its generic counterpart (therefore generally given at full dose) would have led to an estimated savings of €18.35 million in 2006. Moreover, brand-name omeprazole could be sub• stituted with PPIs given for GERD at half dose. 12 ,13 The switch to these PPIs would represent an additional savings potential ofa similar magnitude, especially when con• verting to pantoprazole (additional savings of €8.99 million with adjustment and €13.19 million without adjustment for health care coverage) or rabeprazole (addi• tional savings of €10.55 million with adjustment and €8.81 million without adjust• ment). These calculations were enhanced by considering the differences in the pre• scription durations and the percentages of patients who had full health care coverage by French . These adjustments made it possible to simulate the pre• cise conditions of substitution if carried out by the community pharmacist, and the adjustments considerably modified the results obtained. For example, the number of patients reimbursed at 100% for brand-name omeprazole was substantially higher than the number reimbursed at 100% for the other products. In addition, the mean prescrip• tion duration for full-dose generic omeprazole was shorter than the corresponding dura• tions for the other products at half dose, with the exception of pantoprazole. Justification for the substitution of omeprazole was based on several studies that suggested that half doses of lansoprazole, pantoprazole, rabeprazole, or esomeprazole are clinically equivalent to full doses of omeprazole in terms of efficacy for relieving symptoms in patients with uncomplicated GERD.s-7,16-19 Pantoprazole and esomep• razole, for instance, have been found to have comparable efficacy at half doses in 2 prospective, randomized controlled trials enrolling patients with uncomplicated GERD, with effective symptom relief in at least 65% of cases. 20 ,21 Furthermore, for other indications such as prophylaxis of gastroduodenal lesions linked to NSAIDs in at-risk patients, omeprazole 20 mg (full dose) and pantoprazole 20 mg (half dose) had similar efficacy, with at least 65 % of patients reporting effective symptom relief ac• cording to a self-based assessment. 22 For patients with GERD, the optimal efficacy of omeprazole does not appear to be achieved at halfdose because the 20-mg formulation is indicated in the event of insufficient response, defined as <50% of effective symp• tom relief, to the 10-mg formulation.9 This dosing information was confirmed in 4 clinical trials comparing the 2 formulations, as referred to in the Transparency Com• mission opinion, which stated that omeprazole appeared to be more effective at full dose than at half dose. 23 Furthermore, it should be noted that in the United States, omeprazole 10 mg is reserved for children weighing <20 kg, and 20 mg is the recom• mended dose for the treatment of GERD in adults; a 40-mg dose is also available. 16 The Market Authorization states that the duration of GERD treatment with PPIs varies from 2 to 6 weeks. In our study, treatment duration appeared to be shorter with pantoprazole. Three studies have confirmed the efficacy ofpantoprazole 20 mg in the treatment ofuncomplicated GERD after 2 weeks.24- 26 In the first study, pantoprazole was effective in relieving the symptoms of heartburn in 69% of the patients after 1 week (vs 34% with placebo; P < 0.001) and in 80% of the patients after 2 weeks

294 S. MOULY ET AL.

(vs 46% with placebo; P < 0.001).24 In the prospective, randomized controlled study by Dettmer et al,25 the proportion of patients reporting complete relief of symptoms after 2 weeks of treatment was significantly greater with pantoprazole (69% vs 48% with ranitidine; P < 0.01), and there was further relief after 4 weeks (80% vs 65%; P < 0.05). Finally, in the third prospective study using the same design, 80% of the patients treated with pantoprazole reported complete reliefofsymptoms after 2 weeks (vs 51 % with ranitidine; P < 0.001), and further relief was recorded after 4 weeks (88% vs 58%; P < 0.001).26 In terms ofcosts, a Dutch meta-analysis comparing pan• toprazole 20 mg and 40 mg with omeprazole 20 mg in the treatment of symptomatic GERD and peptic ulcer showed that it would be possible to achieve an annual cost savings of €40.8 million if at least 90% of omeprazole prescriptions were substituted with pantoprazole; no recurrence of symptoms was found during pantoprazole treat• ment at the recommended dosage of 20 mg/d.14 The present study had several limitations. We did not compare our cost-savings strategy with the additional savings potential ofa recently published and well-accepted on-demand treatment strategy for uncomplicated, symptomatic GERD, whereby patients are treated with PPIs after they have complete resolution of heartburn symp• 27 toms following 4 weeks ofopen-label acute PPI treatment. - 29 Although this GERD management strategy is increasingly common for long-term therapy, we are not aware of any objective, well-designed clinical efficacy data on its use. 27 ,30 A recent prospec• tive observational study conducted in 927 patients receiving GERD therapy, either daily or on demand, has shown that only 36% of them were asymptomatic at the time of the study and an additional 20.5% were also taking at least 1 over-the-counter medication,3l Whether the present economic approach will be effective and meet patients' needs in terms of symptom relief deserves further prospective randomized or epidemiologic evaluations.32,33 In patients aged <;50 years, the risk ofsevere esophagitis or neoplastic lesions is low; therefore, patients with typical symptoms (heartburn or acid regurgitation) and with• out any alarm signs can be treated for GERD with antacids or H 2-receptor inhibitors at low doses, especially if symptoms are infrequent.12 The latter group of first-line therapies was used in only 3.5% of the present population. Therefore, although the potential cost savings of such a strategy may have been even greater than those of the substitution strategy evaluated in the present study, those potential savings were not evaluated. Alternatively, a cost-effectiveness approach might have been more clinically relevant, but the present pharmacoeconomic approach was not designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the different substitution strategies proposed.6,7 Finally, whether the cost-saving strategy in this study will decrease the long-term costs of treatment for uncomplicated, symptomatic GERD will require further eco• nomic evaluations.34,35 Our study also highlighted the need for medical-economic evaluations that include further data in addition to drug acquisition costs.

CONCLUSIONS The economic approach presented here made it possible to describe the current pre• scribing practices and estimate the costs of PPIs for uncomplicated, symptomatic

295 CURRENT THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH

GERD in general medical practice in France. In accordance with recent recommenda• tions for the treatment of uncomplicated GERD and based on the 2006 PPI pricing, switching from branded full-dose omeprazole to generic omeprazole or to the use of half doses of other PPIs may achieve cost savings.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study and its publication were supported by sanofi-aventis France. The authors are indebted to Ms. Fiona Feletou for her help in improving the manuscript's language and grammar. Dr. Mouly has received an honorarium from sanofi-aventis France for manuscript preparation and submission. Mr. Fagnani has received an honorarium to design the study, perform the pharmacoeconomic analysis, and write the final study report. Ms. and Dr. Lejeunne had no conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES 1. Bretagne JF, Richard-Molard B, Honnorat C, et al. Gastroesophageal reflux in the French general population: National survey of 8000 adults [in French}. Presse Med. 2006;35:23-31. 2. Bruley Des Varannes S, Marek L, Humeau B, et al. Gastroesophageal reflux disease in primary care. Prevalence, epidemiology and quality of life of patients. Gastroenterol Clin BioI. 2006; 30:364-370. 3. Vakil N, van Zanten SV, Kahrilas P, et al. The Montreal definition and classification ofgastro• esophageal reflux disease: A global evidence-based consensus. Am] Gastroenterol. 2006;101: 1900-1920, quiz 1943. 4. Irvine EJ. Quality of life assessment in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Gut. 2004;53 (Supp14):iv35-iv39. 5. Kromer W, Horbach S, Luhmann R. Relative efficacies of gastric proton pump inhibitors: Their clinical and pharmacological basis. Pharmacology. 1999;59:57-77. 6. Moayyedi P, Talley NJ. Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Lancet. 2006;367:2086-2100. 7. Dean BB, Gano AD Jr, Knight K, et al. Effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors in nonerosive reflux disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2:656-664. 8. Galmiche JP. Non-erosive reflux disease and atypical gastro-oesophageal reflux disease mani• festations: Treatment results. Drugs. 2006;66(Suppll):7-13, discussion 29-33. 9. Mopral® 20 mg [package insert}. Rueil-Malmaison, France: AstraZeneca; 1996. 10. Inipomp® 20 mg [package insert}. Paris, France: sanofi-aventis; 1999. 11. Lanzor® 30 mg [package insert}. Paris, France: sanofi-aventis; 1990. 12. Societe Nationale Fran<;aise de Gastroenterologie (SNFGE). Reflux gastro-oesophagien de l'adulte: Diagnostic et traitement. Les conferences de consensus (texte court). Jeudi 21 et vendredi 22 janvier 1999-Paris. http://www.snfge.assoJr/Ol-Bibliotheque/OC-Conferences• consensus/CC-reflux-1999/CC-reflux-1999.htm. Accessed June 25, 2009. 13. l'Assurance Maladie Caisse Nationale (CNAMTS). Point d'information mensuelle 18 janvier 2006. Maitrise des depenses de sante: l'Assurance Maladie souhaite agir sur la consomma• tion de medicaments anti-ulcereux. http://www.ameliJr/fileadmin/usecupload/documents/ cpI8012006-medicaments_anti-ulcereux.pdf. Accessed June 25, 2009. 14. van Hout BA, Klok RM, Brouwers JR, Postma MJ. A pharmacoeconomic comparison of the efficacy and costs of pantoprazole and omeprazole for the treatment of peptic ulcer or gastro• esophageal reflux disease in the Netherlands. Clin Ther. 2003;25:635-646.

296 S. MOULY ET AL.

15. Cotte FE, Mercier F, De Pouvourville G. Relationship between compliance and persistence with osteoporosis medications and fracture risk in primary health care in France: A retrospec• tive case-control analysis. Clin Ther. 2008;30:2410-2422. 16. Prilosec@ In: PDR Gastroenterology - Concise Prescribing Guide. Montvale, NJ: Thomson Reuters; 2006:129. 17. Furuta T, Shirai N, Takashima M, et al. Effect of genotypic differences in CYP2C19 on cure rates for Helicobacter pylori infection by triple therapy with a proton pump inhibitor, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001;69:158-168. 18. Sakai T, Aoyama N, Kita T, et al. CYP2C19 genotype and pharmacokinetics of three proton pump inhibitors in healthy subjects. Pharm Res. 2001;18:721-727. 19. Yacyshyn BR, Thomson AB. The clinical importance of proton pump inhibitor pharmaco• kinetics. Digestion. 2002;66:67-78. 20. Monnikes H. Pantoprazole 20mg is at least as effective as esomeprazole 20mg for first and sus• tained symptom relief in patients with negative gastroesophageal reflux disease (ENGERDG). Gut. 2003;52(Suppl VI):AI27. 21. Dupas J1. Differences d'activite entre les inhibiteurs de la pompe it proton: Quelle realite? Hepato-Gastro. 2006;13:363-368. 22. Regula J, Butruk E, Dekkers CP, et al. Prevention of NSAID-associated gastro-intestinal lesions: A comparison study pantoprazoleversus omeprazole. Am]Gastroenterol. 2006;101: 1747• 1755. 23. French Agency for the Safety of Health Products, Transparency Commission. Mopral® 10 and 20 mg-Commission report, February 21, 2001 [in French}. http://www.has-santeJr/portail/ upload/docs/application/pdf/ct021113.pdf. Accessed June 25, 2009. 24. Moola SA. Efficacy of pantoprazole 20mg vs placebo once daily in the treatment of patients with symptomatic reflux disease and endoscopically normal oesophagus. Gut. 1999;45 (Suppl V):A268. 25. Dettmer A, Vogt R, SielaffF, et al. Pantoprazole 20 mg is effective for relief of symptoms and healing oflesions in mild reflux oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1998;12:865-872. 26. van 2yl JH, de K Grundling H, van Rensburg CJ, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of 20 mg pantoprazole versus 300 mg ranitidine in patients with mild reflux-oesophagitis: A random• ized, double-blind, parallel, and multicentre study. Eur] Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2000;12: 197-202. 27. Janssen W, Meier E, Gatz G, Pfaffenberger B. Effects of pantoprazole 20 mg in mild gastro• esophageal reflux disease: Once-daily treatment in the acute phase, and comparison of on• demand versus continuous treatment in the long term. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2005;66: 345-363. 28. Hughes DA, Bodger K, Bytzer P, et al. Economic analysis of on-demand maintenance therapy with proton pump inhibitors in patients with non-erosive reflux disease. PharmacoEconomics. 2005;23:1031-1041. 29. Tack J, Fass R. Review article: Approaches to endoscopic-negative reflux disease: Part of the GERD spectrum or a unique acid-related disorder? Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;19 (Suppl 1):28-34. 30. Bytzer P. On-demand therapy for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Eur] Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2001;13(Suppll):SI9-S22. 31. Jones R, Armstrong D, Malfertheiner P, Ducrotte P. Does the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) meet patients' needs? A survey-based study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006; 22:657-662.

297 CURRENT THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH

32. Fox M. Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. BM]. 2006;332:88-93. 33. Ofman J], The economic and quality-of-life impact of symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am] Gastroenterol. 2003;98(Suppl):S8-S14. 34. Cookson R, Flood C, Koo B, et al. Short-term cost effectiveness and long-term cost analysis comparing laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication with proton-pump inhibitor maintenance for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. BrJ Surg. 2005;92:700-706. 35. Remak E, Brown RE, Yuen C, Robinson A. Cost-effectiveness comparison of current proton• pump inhibitors to treat gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in the UK. Curr Med Res Opin. 2005;21:1505-1517.

ADDRESS CORRESPONDENCE TO: Stephane Mouly, MD, PhD, Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris, Universite Paris-Diderot - Paris VII, Unit ofTherapeutic Research, Internal Medicine Department, Lariboisiere Hospital, 2 rue Ambroise Pare, 75475 Paris, France. E-mail: [email protected]

298