Cost-Effectiveness of Pantoprazole to Prevent Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Mechanically Ventilated Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Pantoprazole reduces clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. However, the cost-effectiveness of this strategy is unclear. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of daily intravenous pantoprazole vs no pantoprazole for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in mechanically ventilated patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective health economic evaluation was conducted alongside the Reevaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions (REVISE) trial over a time horizon of intensive care unit (ICU) admission to hospital discharge or death from a public health care payer's perspective. The REVISE trial included critically ill adults from Canada, Australia, the US, England, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Kuwait, and Pakistan receiving invasive ventilation. Interventions: Daily intravenous pantoprazole (40 mg) or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the incremental cost per clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleed prevented. The base-case analysis included all study site-specific resource utilization. Canadian costs were applied to measured resource uses across sites. Sensitivity analyses were conducted across cost ranges and using US-based cost estimates. Uncertainty was assessed using nonparametric bootstrapping simulations. All costs are presented in 2025 US dollars. Results: 4821 invasively ventilated critically ill patients (mean [SD] age, 58.2 [16.4] years; 1752 female [36.3%]) were enrolled from 68 ICUs. For pantoprazole, the mean (SD) stay was 12.4 (11.7) days in the ICU and an additional 14.8 (28.0) days in the hospital, as compared with 13.3 (13.3) days in the ICU and 16.5 (42.9) days in the hospital for no pantoprazole. Mean (SD) total per-patient costs were $60 466 ($58 546) for pantoprazole vs $65 423 ($75 661) for no pantoprazole. The incremental cost per patient was -$4957 (95% CI, -$8777 to -$1136). In a sensitivity analysis, US costs were applied for pantoprazole, bleeding, and ICU and hospital stay to all patients; mean (SD) total per-patient costs were $130 179 ($123 456) for pantoprazole vs $140 770 ($153 195) for no pantoprazole (incremental cost: -$10 591; 95% CI, -$18 448 to $-2735). When excluding top 10% of patients in terms of ICU days, ward days, and total costs, the incremental costs were -$1151, -$3388, and -$1356, respectively. In 99% of simulations, the strategy of using pantoprazole was more effective and less costly than no pantoprazole. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation, daily pantoprazole for invasively mechanically ventilated patients was less costly and more effective than care without pantoprazole, indicating both clinical benefits and economic value for the health care system.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".