DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20183034

Cost variation analysis of proton pump inhibitors available in Indian market

Akash Chandra, Manish Kumar, Lalit Kumar, Harihar Dikshit

Abstract


Background: In now days proton pump inhibitors are prescribing more and more by Indian physicians not only in peptic ulcer,gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastritis but also along with non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to overcome the side effects as gastric irritation and discomfort by non steroidal anti inflammatory drugs.There are many brands of PPI drugs available in Indian market. Costly drugs can lead to economic burden which results in decreased compliance or even non-compliance. Non –compliance leads to incomplete treatment which tends to increase morbidity.Increase in the patient medication cost was found to associated with decreased adherence to prescription medication.Hence this study was done to assess the cost variation of proton pump inhibitors [PPI] drugs.

Methods: The maximum and minimum price of each brand of the drug in INR was noted by using CIMS January to April 2018 edition Drug Today April to June 2018 Vol-1. The cost ratio and the percentage cost variation for individual drug brands was calculated. The cost of 10 tablets/capsules was calculated in case of oral drug and the cost of one 1 vial or ampoule was noted in case of injectable drug. At last the cost ratio and percentage cost variation of various brands was compared.

Results: Percentage variation in cost for proton pump inhibitors marketed in india was found to be tablet/capsule Esomeprazole [20mg]:141.17, tablet/capsule Esomeprazole [40mg]:196.29, capsule/tablet Omeprazole[20mg]: 569.53, Tablet/capsule Pantoprazole[40mg]: 248.8, tablet /capsule Rabeprazole[20mg]: 815.78, capsule/tablet Lansoprazole[30mg]: 173.33, Inj. Esomeprazole [40mg] 1 vial: 81.81, Inj. Omeprazole[40mg] 1vial: 47.95, Inj. Pantoprazole[40mg] 1vial: 66.66, Inj.Rabeprazole [20mg] 1vial: 176.625.

Conclusions: Tablet Rabeprazole[20mg] shows highest cost ratio and percentage cost variation as 9.15 and 815.78. While Inj. Omeprazole[40mg] 1 vial shows lowest cost ratio and percentage cost variation as 1.47 and 47.95.


Keywords


Compliance, Cost ratio, Percentage cost variation, PPI

Full Text:

PDF

References


Forte JG, Lee HC. Gastric adenosine triphosphatases: a review of their possible role in HCl secretion. Gastroenterology. 1977 Oct;73(4 Pt 2):921-6.

Snaeder W. Drug prototypes and their exploitation. Wiley;1996:414-415.

Hemenway JN. Case Study: Omeprazole (Prilosec). Prodrugs. Biotechnology: Pharmaceutical Aspects. Springer, New York, NY; 2007:1313-1321. ISBN 978-0-387-49782-2.

Olbe L, Carlsson E, Lindberg P. A proton-pump inhibitor expedition: the case histories of omeprazole and esomeprazole. Nature reviews drug discovery. 2003 Feb;2(2):132-9 (PMID 12563304).

Senn-Bilfinger J, Sturm E. The Development of a New Proton-Pump Inhibitor: The Case History of Pantoprazole. Analogue-based Drug Discovery; 2006:115-136. ISBN 978-3-527-60800-3.

Lindberg P, Carlsson E. Esomeprazole in the Framework of Proton-Pump Inhibitor Development. Analogue-based Drug Discovery; 2006:81-113. ISBN 978-3-527-60800-3.

Shin, Moo J, Keith M, Olga V, Sachs G. The gastric HK-ATPase: Structure, function, and inhibition. Pflügers Archiv - European Journal of Physiology. 2008;457(3):609-22.

Sachs G, Shin, Moo J, Olga V, Lambrecht N, Iskandar Y, Munson K. The Gastric H, K ATPase as a Drug Target. J Cli Gastroenterol. 2007;41(2):226-42.

Eaddy MT, Cook CL, O’Day K, Burch SP, Cantrell CR. How patients cost-sharing trends affects adherence and out comes: a literature review: PT. 2012;37:45-55.

Ahuja J, Gupta M, Gupta AK, Kohli K. Pharmacoeconomics. Natl Med J India. 2004;17:80-3.

Sanchez LS. Pharmacoeconomics: Principles, methods and applications. In: Dipiro JT, Talbert RL, Yee GC, Matzke GR, Wells BG, Posey ML, Eds. Pharmacotherapy: A pathophysiological approach. 7th Ed. McGraw Hill; New York; 2008:1-2.

Das SC, Mandal M, Mandal SC. A critical study on availability and price variation between different brands: impact on access to medicines. Indian J Pharm Sci. 2007;69(1):160-3.

Chawan VS, Gawand KV, Badwane SV. Cost analysis of oral hypolipidemic agents available in India. Int J Basic Pharmacol. 2014:3:954-7.

Thomas M. Rational drug use and essential drug concept. In: Parthasarthi G, Nyfort Hasen K, Editors. A Textbook of Clinical Pharmacy Practice. 1st Ed. Himayatnagar, Hyderabad: Orient Longman; 2004:72 3.

Creese A, Kotwani A, Kutzin J, Pillay A. Evauating pharmaceuticals for health policy in low and middle-income country settings. In: Freemantle N, Hill S, eds. Evaluating pharmaceuticals for health policy and reimbursement. Massachusetts, USA: Blackwell Publication; (in collaboration with WHO Geneva); 2004:227-243.

Mahal A, Karan A, Engelgau M. The Economic Implications of Non-Communicable Disease for India. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2010. Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/HEALTHNUTRI TIONANDPOPULATION/Resources/281627- 1095698140167/Economic Implications of NCD for India.pdf.

Rataboli PV, Garg A. Confusing brand names: nightmare of medical profession. J Postgrad Med. 2005;51:13-6.

Drug Cost Control, Government of India; Order, 2013. Available at: http://www.nppaindia.nic.in/DPCO2013. pdf.

Vieira JL, Portal VL, Moriguchi EH. How much do we pay for a benefit? A descriptive cost analysis of the use of statins. The need for a national cost-effectiveness analysis. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2001;76(5):409-18.

Kumar L, Dinkar JK, Mohan L, Dikshit H. Cost variation analysis of antimalarial drugs available in India. Int J Rese in Med Scienc. 2017 Aug 26;5(9):4051-4.