ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2021
Cost Analysis in
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy, safety and compliance with dual, triple and quadruple therapy as the first-line treatment regimens forBMJ open gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- Optimizing acid-related disease management: insights into potassium-competitive acid blockers and proton pump inhibitors.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Review
- Gastric cancer risk after Helicobacter pylori eradication in gastritis and peptic ulcer: a retrospective cohort study in Japan.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Human microbiomes in cancer development and therapy.MedComm · 2023Review
- Real-world outcomes associated with vonoprazan-basedTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCost-benefit is an important consideration for MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective observational study used data from a large-scale, nationwide health insurance claims database (2015‒2018). Using success rates of first-line eradication, mean total costs of first-line and second-line eradications per patient were compared between regimens including a potassium-competitive acid blocker (P-CAB) or a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), and between two clarithromycin (CAM) doses (400 and 800 mg/day). Subgroup analyses by smoking habit or body mass index (BMI) were performed.
resultsAmong propensity score (age, gender, CAM dose, disease name)-matched patients (P-CAB regimen, n=22,002; PPI regimen, n=22,002), total costs were lower with the P-CAB than the PPI regimen (Japanese yen [JPY] 12,952 vs 13,146) owing to significantly higher first-line eradication rates with the P-CAB regimen (93.6% vs 79.7%;
conclusionHigh success rate of first-line eradication contributes to saving in total eradication costs by reducing costs of subsequent therapy, irrespective of patients' smoking status or BMI class. The combination of more potent acid-inhibitory medicine and low-dose CAM may be the optimal regimen in terms of efficacy and cost-benefit in Japan.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.