Home  |  About us  |  Editorial board  |  Current issue  |  Archives  |  Submit article  |  Instructions |  Search  |   Subscribe  |  Advertise  |  Contacts  |  Login 
  Users Online: 140Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 4-8

Comparison of efficacy and pharmacoeconomics of two helicobacter pylori eradication regimens in peptic ulcer disease


1 PharmD Intern, Deccan School of Pharmacy, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
2 Department of Pharmacy Practice, Deccan School of Pharmacy, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
3 Department of Gastroenterology, Princess Esra Hospital, Deccan College of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Correspondence Address:
Assoc. Prof. Aamir Ali Asgar Syed
Deccan School of Pharmacy, Hyderabad, Telangana
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/picr.PICR_99_16

Rights and Permissions

Background: Helicobacter pylori, the cause of most peptic ulcer diseases, infects approximately 50% of the population worldwide. Indian data on cost and effectiveness of the standard first-line therapies for H. pylori eradication are scarce. Thus, the present study was aimed at comparing the cost and efficacy of two standard first-line therapies: Regimen I comprising pantoprazole (40 mg) plus amoxicillin (750 mg) plus clarithromycin (500 mg) (PAC) and Regimen II comprising rabeprazole (20 mg) plus amoxicillin (625 mg) plus metronidazole (200 mg) (RAM). Methodology: This prospective, observational, bottom-up study collected demographic, economic, diagnostic, and therapeutic data from 60 H. pylori-positive patients. The study was carried out for 6 months in the Gastroenterology Department of a Tertiary Care Hospital in Hyderabad, Telangana, India. Results: Health-care system perspective was used to account for direct costs. Average cost per patient for complete H. pylori eradication was Rs. 10,221 and Rs. 8568 for Regimen I and Regimen II, respectively. Inpatient cost was considerably higher than the outpatient cost. Diagnostic costs ranked first in direct costs, followed by hospitalization costs, medication costs, and finally, physician's office visit cost. Individual patient's costs difference between two regimens was found to be statistically significant. Overall, Regimen I proved to be more efficacious than Regimen II, but Regimen II proved to be more cost-effective than Regimen I. Furthermore, incremental cost-effectiveness analysis revealed additional cost of Rs. 127 per patient if the patient was treated with Regimen I instead of Regimen II. Conclusion: Our study showed that Regimen II (RAM) was more cost-effective than Regimen I (PAC), but PAC achieved faster H. pylori eradication than RAM. We assume that this study provides local clinical data as to which regimen may be useful in a particular patient. National Level Clinical Trials are required to further ascertain this conclusion.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed187    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded50    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal