The cost-effectiveness of sequential versus standard triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication in Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The utilization rate of different treatment regimens for Helicobacter pylori infection is believed to be high; however, the cost-effectiveness of these regimens has not been examined before. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of the two commonly prescribed treatments for H. pylori infection. Methods: The data of. an open-label, single-center, randomized trial that compared the efficacy of sequential therapy (SQT) (i.e., esomeprazole 20 mg twice daily for 10 days, amoxicillin 1000 mg twice daily for 5 days, then clarithromycin 500 mg and tinidazole 500 mg twice daily for 5 days) to standard triple therapy (STT) (i.e., esomeprazole 20 mg, amoxicillin 1000 mg, and clarithromycin 500 twice daily for 14 days) in the eradication of H. pylori, as confirmed by the negative urea breath test (UBT), were used. Propensity score matching bin bootstrapping, with 10,000 replications and bias correction was conducted to generate the 95% confidence limits. Moreover, probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted by varying both the eradication rates and the costs of treatment regimens. Results: There were 82 and 88 patients who were on SQT and STT, respectively. Patients' mean age was 47 years, and approximately 55% of them were females. The mean treatment costs were SAR 2,075.51 (USD 553.47) and SAR 2,629.26 (USD 701.14) for SQT and STT, respectively. The mean eradication rates for SQT and STT were 63.41% and 67.05%, respectively. The mean difference in costs and eradication rates for SQT versus STT were SAR - 550.75 (95% CI: -563.84- -537.69) and - 3.64% (95% CI: -6.98- 5.88). The use of SQT was more likely to be cost saving and more effective with 56.25% confidence level, in comparison to STT. Conclusion: The use of SQT in the treatment of H. pylori seems to be more cost-effective than STT.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".