The effectiveness and cost of lansoprazole and pantoprazole for stress ulcer prophylaxis in intensive care unit

Authors

  • Mega Octavia Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta
  • Zullies Ikawati Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Gadjah Mada
  • Tri Murti Andayani Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Gadjah Mada

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12928/pharmaciana.v11i3.19617

Keywords:

, effectiveness, cost, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, intensive care unit (ICU)

Abstract

The incidence of bleeding is increased in high risk patients with critical conditions in Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Appropriate prophylaxis medicine is necessary to reduce the incidence of stress ulcer bleeding during hospitalization in ICU which further can minimize the cost of patient care in the ICU. Currently, lansoprazole and pantoprazole are used as a stress ulcers prophylaxis. Nevertheless, there has not been sufficient evidence proving their effectiveness. This study was aimed to compare the effectiveness and cost between iv lansoprazole and iv pantoprazole as a stress ulcer prophylaxis in ICU. In this retrospective observational study, the data were obtained from medical records of all patients admitted to ICU in a District Hospital in Yogyakarta from January 2014 until December 2016. Effectiveness of therapy were obtained from objective data in the medical record by looking at the incidence of major (clinically signiï¬cant) and minor (overt gastrointestinal) bleeding. Chi-square analysis was performed to analyze the difference of bleeding incidence. The average cost was presented as Expected Monetary Value (EMV), which consisted of the cost of prophylaxis and treatment of bleeding. The difference in average cost was analyzed using independent t-test. A total of 119 patients were included in this study. There were 62 patients in the lansoprazole group and 47 patients in the pantoprazole group. Forty eight patients (77,4%) from lansoprazole group and 35 patients (61,4%) from pantoprazole group did not experience any GI bleeding. There was no statistical difference in the incidence of GI bleeding between the two groups (CI 95%, P-value = 0.057). The EMV of lansoprazole group was higher than pantoprazole group IDR 645.122,57 and IDR 511.629,39 respectively. In conclusion, there was no significant difference regarding the effectiveness between iv lansoprazole and iv pantoprazole as stress ulcer prophylaxis. Costs for the prophylaxis of stress ulcers is lower on the use of pantoprazole compared to lansoprazole.

Author Biography

Mega Octavia, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta

Clinical Pharmacy Department

References

ASHP. (1999). ASHP therapeutic guidelines on stress ulcer prophylaxis. ASHP Commission on Therapeutics and approved by the ASHP Board of Directors on November 14, 1998. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy: AJHP: Official Journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, 56(4), 347–379. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/56.4.347

Avendaño-Reyes, J. M., & Jaramillo-Ramírez, H. (2014). Prophylaxis for stress ulcer bleeding in the intensive care unit. Revista de Gastroenterología de México (English Edition), 79(1), 50–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rgmxen.2013.05.001

Aygencel, G., & Turkoglu, M. (2011). Characteristics, outcomes and costs of prolonged stay ICU patients. Dahili ve Cerrahi Bilimler Yoğun Bakım Dergisi/ Turkish Journal of Medical and Surgical Intensive Care, 2, 53–58. https://doi.org/10.5152/dcbybd.2011.12

Barkun, A. N., Adam, V., Martel, M., & Bardou, M. (2013). Cost-effectiveness analysis: stress ulcer bleeding prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors, H2 receptor antagonists. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 16(1), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2213

Burris, A. J. (2014). Proton pump inhibitors vs. histamine2-receptor antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis: battle of the acid suppressants

Chubineh, J., & Birk, J. (2012). Proton pump inhibitors: the good, the bad, and the unwanted. 105(11), 613–618. https://doi.org/10.1097/SMJ.0b013e31826efbea

Heidelbaugh, J. J., Goldberg, K. L., & Inadomi, J. M. (2010). Magnitude and economic effect of overuse of antisecretory therapy in the ambulatory care setting. 16(9), 228

Kerama, S. K., Okalebo, F. A., Nyamu, D. G., Guantai, E. M., Ndwigah, S. N., & Maru, S. M. (2014). Risk factors and management of stress ulcers in the critical care unit in a kenyan referral hospital. 3(2), 51–61

Khoshbaten, M., Farzin, H., Fattahi, E., & Asl, M. E. (2006). Significant upper gi – bleeding in critically ill patients. The Internet Journal of Gastroenterology, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.5580/2332

Krag, M., Perner, A., Wetterslev, J., Wise, M. P., Borthwick, M., Bendel, S., Pelosi, P., Keus, F., Guttormsen, A. B., Schefold, J. C., & Møller, M. H. (2016). Stress ulcer prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor versus placebo in critically ill patients (SUP-ICU trial): Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials, 17(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1331-3

Lanas, A., García-Rodríguez, L. A., Arroyo, M. T., Gomollón, F., Feu, F., González-Pérez, A., Zapata, E., Bástida, G., Rodrigo, L., Santolaria, S., Güell, M., de Argila, C. M., Quintero, E., Borda, F., Piqué, J. M., & Asociación Española de Gastroenterología. (2006). Risk of upper gastrointestinal ulcer bleeding associated with selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors, traditional non-aspirin non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, aspirin and combinations. Gut, 55(12), 1731–1738. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2005.080754

Mohamad, M. S., Shamsuddin, N., & Tan, K. M. (2015). Appropriateness of stress ulcer prophylaxis among older adults admitted to general medical wards in a university hospital. European Geriatric Medicine, 6(2), 119–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurger.2014.11.004

Mohebbi, L., & Hesch, K. (2009). Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit. 22(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2009.11928562

Mutlu, G. M., Mutlu, E. A., & Factor, P. (2001). GI complications in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Chest, 119(4), 1222–1241. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.119.4.1222

Pipilis, A., Makrygiannis, S., Chrisanthopoulou, E., Sourlas, N., Kaliambakos, S., & Ntailianas, P. (2014). Gastrointestinal bleeding in patients receiving antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy: Practical guidance for restarting therapy and avoiding recurrences. Hellenic Journal of Cardiology: HJC = Hellenike Kardiologike Epitheorese, 55(6), 499–509

Shin, J. M., & Kim, N. (2013). Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the proton pump inhibitors. Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility, 19(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.5056/jnm.2013.19.1.25

Spirt, M. J., & Stanley, S. (2006). Update on stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients. Critical Care Nurse, 26(1), 18–20, 22–28; quiz 29. https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2006.26.1.18

Udeh, B. L., Udeh, C., & Hata, J. S. (2010). Cost-Effectiveness of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis: Role of Proton Pump Inhibitors. 2(5), 9

Yang, Q.-Y., Ouyang, J., & Yang, J.-D. (2018). Sepsis is an important risk factor for gastrointestinal bleeding in acute coronary syndrome patients: Two case reports. Medicine, 97(36), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000012273

Yasuda, H., Matsuo, Y., Sato, Y., Ozawa, S.-I., Ishigooka, S., Yamashita, M., Yamamoto, H., & Itoh, F. (2015). Treatment and prevention of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients receiving antiplatelet therapy. World Journal of Critical Care Medicine, 4(1), 40–46. https://doi.org/10.5492/wjccm.v4.i1.40

Yazdi, A. P., & Imantalab, M. (2015). Stress-related mucosal disease in critically Ill patients. Journal of Patient Safety & Quality Improvement journal, 3(2), 266–268

Downloads

Published

2021-10-23

Issue

Vol. 11 No. 3 (2021): Pharmaciana

Section

Clinical and Community Pharmacy

License

Authors who publish with Pharmaciana agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment 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 acknowledgment 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.