What question did this study set out to answer?

This study aims to analyze the cost-effectiveness of different treatment methods for Helicobacter pylori infection.

May 19, 2026Journal of Health Population and Nutrition0 citationsOpen Access

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

HFHossein FaramarziShiraz University of Medical Sciences ZKZahra KhajoeiShiraz University of Medical Sciences FLFarhad LotfiShiraz University of Medical Sciences

Key Points

This study aims to analyze the cost-effectiveness of different treatment methods for Helicobacter pylori infection.
Conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a clinical trial with 132 patients.
Patients were randomly divided into two groups: 64 received antibiotics and 68 received herbal treatment.
Used a decision-tree model to synthesize clinical and cost data and performed a one-way sensitivity analysis.”],
Antibiotic treatment was found to be cheaper and more effective than herbal treatment, with mean costs of $446.14 and $477.81 respectively.
Effectiveness rates were 62.5% for antibiotics and 38.2% for herbal treatment, making antibiotics the dominant strategy.
Sensitivity analysis confirmed the study's results were robust.

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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.

问 AI

Bookmark

View Full Paper