↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Cost-effectiveness analysis of universal noninvasive testing for post-treatment confirmation of Helicobacter pylori eradication and the impact of patient adherence

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Cost-effectiveness analysis of universal noninvasive testing for post-treatment confirmation of Helicobacter pylori eradication and the impact of patient adherence
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, June 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s102760
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tao Wang, Susan Boklage, Allen Mangel, Varun Ramamohan, Deirdre Mladsi, Alice Concepcion

Abstract

The treatment failure rate for Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy is ~20% due to poor patient compliance and increased antibiotic resistance. This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of universal post-treatment testing to confirm eradication of H. pylori infection in adults. Decision-analytic models evaluated the cost-effectiveness of universal post-treatment testing (urea breath test [UBT] or monoclonal fecal antigen test [mFAT]) vs no testing (Model 1), and UBT vs mFAT after adjusting for patient adherence to testing (Model 2) in adults who previously received first-line antimicrobial therapy. Patients testing positive received second-line quadruple therapy; no further action was taken for those testing negative or with no testing (Model 1) or for those nonadherent to testing (Model 2). In addition to testing costs, excess lifetime costs and reduced quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) due to continuing H. pylori infection were considered in the model. Expected total costs per patient were higher for post-treatment testing (UBT: US$325.76; mFAT: US$242.12) vs no testing (US$182.41) in Model 1 and for UBT (US$336.75) vs mFAT (US$326.24) in Model 2. Expected QALYs gained per patient were 0.71 and 0.72 for UBT and mFAT, respectively, vs no testing (Model 1), and the same was 0.37 for UBT vs mFAT (Model 2). The estimated incremental costs per QALY gained for post-treatment testing vs no testing were US$82.90-US$202.45 and, after adjusting for adherence, US$28.13 for UBT vs mFAT. Universal post-treatment testing was found to be cost-effective for confirming eradication of H. pylori infection following first-line therapy. Better adherence to UBT relative to mFAT was the key to its cost-effectiveness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 11 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 June 2016.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,293
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,498
of 353,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#47
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,659 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.