Scholarlink

Objectives <p><i>Helicobacter pylori</i> <b>(</b>H. pylori<b>)</b> infection is highly prevalent worldwide and affects more than half of the world’s population. Various treatment regimens to eliminate H. pylori have been evaluated; however, selecting the most cost-effective regimen remains a challenge for clinicians. Therefore, the present study aimed at analyzing the cost-effectiveness of using different methods to treat H. pylori in southern Iran.</p> Methods <p>A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a clinical trial that compared antibiotics versus herbal treatment in 132 patients with H. pylori referred to Shahid Motahari Clinic in Shiraz in 2020. A decision-tree model was developed to synthesize clinical and cost data. The patients were randomly divided into two groups, 64 of whom received an antibiotic regimen and 68 patients received a herbal treatment. The success rate of clinical trials in each treatment method was determined as the clinical outcome. This study was conducted from a societal perspective; therefore, direct and indirect costs were included. A data collection form was also used to collect the cost and effectiveness data. In addition, a one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to measure the robustness of the results. The data were analyzed using Tree Age Pro 2011 and Excel 2016 software.</p> Results <p>The results showed that antibiotic treatment was cheaper and more effective than herbal treatment and was the dominant strategy. The mean costs in the antibiotics and herbal treatment groups were $446.14 and $477.81, respectively, and the effectiveness was 62.5% and 38.2%. In addition, the one-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the study results.</p> Conclusion <p>The results showed that the use of antibiotics was a cost-effective and dominant strategy compared to herbal treatment and could be suggested as a better alternative to a wide range of patients with H. pylori infection. This conclusion is tempered by the short-term perspective, single-center design, and modest sample size of the study, highlighting the need for confirmatory long-term, multicenter research.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Economic evaluation of herbal versus antibiotic treatment in treating patients with Helicobacter pylori infection in the South of Iran: an analysis alongside a clinical trial

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月17日

查看全文
  • Hossein Faramarzi,
  • Zahra Khajoei,
  • Farhad Lotfi,
  • Mehdi Rezaee,
  • Khosro Keshavarz,
  • Mohammad Mahdi Mojahedian,
  • Seyedeh Azra Shamsdin,
  • Kamran Bagheri Lankrani

摘要

Objectives

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection is highly prevalent worldwide and affects more than half of the world’s population. Various treatment regimens to eliminate H. pylori have been evaluated; however, selecting the most cost-effective regimen remains a challenge for clinicians. Therefore, the present study aimed at analyzing the cost-effectiveness of using different methods to treat H. pylori in southern Iran.

Methods

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a clinical trial that compared antibiotics versus herbal treatment in 132 patients with H. pylori referred to Shahid Motahari Clinic in Shiraz in 2020. A decision-tree model was developed to synthesize clinical and cost data. The patients were randomly divided into two groups, 64 of whom received an antibiotic regimen and 68 patients received a herbal treatment. The success rate of clinical trials in each treatment method was determined as the clinical outcome. This study was conducted from a societal perspective; therefore, direct and indirect costs were included. A data collection form was also used to collect the cost and effectiveness data. In addition, a one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to measure the robustness of the results. The data were analyzed using Tree Age Pro 2011 and Excel 2016 software.

Results

The results showed that antibiotic treatment was cheaper and more effective than herbal treatment and was the dominant strategy. The mean costs in the antibiotics and herbal treatment groups were $446.14 and $477.81, respectively, and the effectiveness was 62.5% and 38.2%. In addition, the one-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the study results.

Conclusion

The results showed that the use of antibiotics was a cost-effective and dominant strategy compared to herbal treatment and could be suggested as a better alternative to a wide range of patients with H. pylori infection. This conclusion is tempered by the short-term perspective, single-center design, and modest sample size of the study, highlighting the need for confirmatory long-term, multicenter research.