Effectifity and Cost Analysis of Omeprazole and Pantoprazole for Stress Related Mucosal Disease Prophylaxis in ICU


Dyah Atmi Tri Sukengtyas(1*), Tri Murti Andayani(2), L. Endang Budiarti(3)

(1) Post Graduate Program, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Gadjah Mada
(2) Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Gadjah Mada
(3) Clinical Pharmacy, Rumah Sakit Bethesda Yogyakarta
(*) Corresponding Author


Currently, the most effective therapeutic agent as a Stress Related Mucosal Disease (SRMD) prophylaxis therapy is the group of Proton Pump Inhibitor (PPI). In Indonesia, PPI agent most commonly used is pantoprazole and omeprazole, for they are already available in the form of injection and also available in generic product. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness and the therapy cost of omeprazole and pantoprazole used as a prophylaxis agent of SRMD. This study used observational analytic method using a retrospective cohort study. The subjects were patients in ICU of Bethesda Hospital in Yogyakarta with age ≥ 18 year old who received the therapy of omeprazole or pantoprazole as a prophylaxis of SRMD during January 2012 – September 2016 who meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The effectivity of therapy was seen by the bleeding events. The cost was calculated based on the amount of fee required by the patient, both the use of the medicine as a prophylaxis therapy of SRMD and for the bleeding therapy of SRMD. The value of Expected Monetary Value (EMV) was then calculated using the method of Decision Tree. Subject in this study were 152 patients, in which there were 76 patients on each group therapy of pantoprazole and omeprazole. The comparison between the number of patients who did not experience bleeding between group of pantoprazole and group of omeprazole is 85.5%: 81.6% (p = 0.512). The value of EMV in the pantoprazole group is Rp. 431.490,76, while the omeprazole group is Rp. 382.042,57. There is no difference in the effectivity between pantoprazole and omeprazole as a prophylaxis of SRMD, and the cost for SRMD prophylaxis is cheaper in the omeprazole therapy than in the pantoprazole therapy.

Full Text:



Stollman N, Metz DC. Pathophysiology and prophylaxis of stress ulcer in intensive care unit patients. J Crit Care. 2005;20(1):35-45. doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2004.10.003.

Clinical Pharmacy Working Committee. Critical-Care-Handbook-2013. 1st ed. Malaysia: Pharmaceutical Services Division Ministry of Health; 2013.

Marik PE. Handbook of Evidence-Based Critical Care. 2nd ed.; 2010.

Brett S. Science review: the use of proton pump inhibitors for gastric acid suppression in critical illness. Crit Care. 2004;9(1):45-50.

Vcev A, Stimac D, Vceva A, et al. Pantoprazole Versus Omeprazole in The Treatment of Reflux Esophagitis. Acta Medica Croat C̆asopis Hravatske Akad Med Znan. 1999;53(2):79-82.

Amaral MC, Favas C, Alves JD, Riso N, Riscado MV. Stress-related mucosal disease: Incidence of bleeding and the role of omeprazole in its prophylaxis. Eur J Intern Med. 2010;21(5):386-388. doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2010.06.010.

Zheng R-N. Comparative study of omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole and esomeprazole for symptom relief in patients with reflux esophagitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15(8):990. doi:10.3748/wjg.15.990.

ASHP Therapeutic Guidelines on Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis.

Mutlu GM, Mutlu EA, Factor P. GI Complications in Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation. Chest. 2001;119(4):1222-1241. doi:10.1378/chest.119.4.1222.

Ament PW, Dicola DB, James ME. Reducing Adverse Effects of Proton Pump Inhibitors. Am Fam Physician. 2012;86(1):66-70.

Spirt MJ. Stress-related mucosal disease: Risk factors and prophylactic therapy. Clin Ther. 2004;26(2):197-213. doi:10.1016/S0149-2918(04)90019-7.

Mohebbi L, Hesch, K. Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in The Intensive Care Unit. Baylor Univ Med Cent Proc. 2009;22(4):373-376.

Cook DJ, Griffith LE, Walter SD, et al. The attributable mortality and length of intensive care unit stay of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Crit care. 2001;5(6):368.

Cook D, Fuller H, Guyatt G, dkk. Risk Factors for Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Critically Ill Patient. Massachusetts Med Soc. 1994;330(6):377-381.

Mathialagan R, Hariraj R. Gastroenterology in the elderly. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;43(6):352–355.

Yachimski PS, Friedman LS. Gastrointestinal bleeding in the elderly. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;5(2):80-93. doi:10.1038/ncpgasthep1034.

Lanas A. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, low-dose aspirin, and potential ways of reducing the risk of complications. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2001;13(6):623–626.

Fagon J-Y, Chastre J, Vuagnat A, Trouillet J-L, Novara A, Gibert C. Nosocomial Pneumonia and Mortality Among Patients in Intensive Care Units. JAMA. 1996;275(11):866-869. doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03530350048033.

Udeh BL, Udeh C, Hata JS. Cost-Effectiveness of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis: Role of Proton Pump Inhibitors. Am J Pharm Benefits. 2010;2(5):304-312.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jmpf.30119

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 5549 | views : 23511


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2017 JURNAL MANAJEMEN DAN PELAYANAN FARMASI (Journal of Management and Pharmacy Practice)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

©Jurnal Manajemen dan Pelayanan Farmasi
Faculty of Pharmacy
Universitas Gadjah Mada
Creative Commons License
View My Stats