A therapeutic substitution policy for proton pump inhibitors: Clinical and economic consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: With the growing need to provide prescription drug benefits to older patients and to contain costs, it will be necessary to direct that coverage so as to make expenditures as efficient as possible. We evaluated the clinical and economic consequences of coverage restriction for 3 leading proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in a large-scale natural experiment. METHODS: The study design was a time-trend analysis in the setting of a provincial drug benefits program in British Columbia, Canada. We studied all British Columbia residents aged 66 or older (N = 501,104) using linked data on all prescription drug dispensings, physician services, and hospitalizations between January 2002 and June 2004. The new policy restricted coverage to rabeprazole and required treatment failure with a histamine H2 blocker. More widely used PPIs (omeprazole, pantoprazole, and lansoprazole) had to be paid for out of pocket, unless the physician requested an exemption. The main outcome measures were utilization of PPIs, drug discontinuation rates, gastrointestinal hemorrhage rates, and drug expenditures. RESULTS: Utilization of the restricted PPIs declined sharply after the policy change (-14,850 daily doses per month per 10,000 residents, P < .0001), whereas use of the covered PPI increased sharply (+19,300, P < .0001), with 45% of all PPI users switching to the covered agent within 6 months. We found no increased use of H2 blockers or stopping of gastroprotective drugs. There was no increase in the monthly rate of hospitalization for gastrointestinal hemorrhage after the PPI restriction (P = .35) even though the study had the power to detect increases of 24 events per 10,000 residents with 95% confidence. There was a slight increase in physician visits 3 months after the policy change (P = .01) for a 2-month period when 9% of new rabeprazole users were switched back to a restricted PPI. In the first 6 months of the policy change, the provincial health plan saved at least 2.9 million Canadian dollars as a result of the policy change. CONCLUSIONS: Coverage restriction of 3 leading PPIs led to substantial utilization changes and savings, without increased noncompliance or clinical complication.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".