A review of the clinical and economic impact of using esomeprazole or lansoprazole for the treatment of erosive esophagitis.

Background: The use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for the treatment of erosive esophagitis has had a major impact on the prescribing budgets of primary care organizations in the United Kingdom. Assessments of the clinical and economic effectiveness of PPIs would provide useful tools for decision-making.

Objective: The goal of this study was to review the available preclinical and clinical studies comparing esomeprazole with lansoprazole in the healing and maintenance of erosive esophagitis, and to compare the budgeting impact of the 2 strategies. Comparative tolerability was also reviewed.

Methods: MEDLINE (1966-September 2002) and EMBASE (1980-September 2002) were searched for abstracts and articles reporting comparative studies of esomeprazole and lansoprazole. The search terms used were gastroesophageal reflux disease, reflux esophagitis, and proton pump inhibitor; all comparisons of esomeprazole and lansoprazole at any dose were considered. The database search was supplemented based on the authors' familiarity with the literature.

Results: The comparative studies that were identified fell into 4 categories: (1) intragastric acid suppression studies; (2) randomized controlled trials in the healing of erosive esophagitis; (3) randomized controlled trials in the maintenance of erosive esophagitis; and (4) health economic analyses. Based on these studies, when healing doses (esomeprazole 40 mg once daily, lansoprazole 30 mg once daily) and low doses (20 and 15 mg once daily, respectively) were compared, esomeprazole was more efficacious than lansoprazole in suppressing acid in the intragastric compartment (both comparisons, P < 0.05). More patients with erosive esophagitis experienced healing at 4 and 8 weeks with esomeprazole 40 mg once daily than with lansoprazole 30 mg once daily (P < 0.001 at 4 and 8 weeks). At 6 months, remission was maintained in more patients receiving esomeprazole 20 mg once daily than in those receiving lansoprazole 15 mg once daily (P < 0.001). No significant differences in tolerability were noted in clinical trials that directly compared the 2 PPIs. When the cost-effectiveness of esomeprazole treatment was compared with that of lansoprazole treatment in the healing and maintenance of erosive esophagitis, the greater efficacy of esomeprazole translated into potential cost savings and better outcomes.

Conclusion: The currently available comparative data for esomeprazole and lansoprazole indicate clinical and cost-effectiveness advantages for esomeprazole in the healing and maintenance of erosive esophagitis compared with lansoprazole.