The cost-effectiveness of sequential versus standard triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication in Saudi Arabia.

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.

Community Pharmacists' Views of the Enforced Antibiotics Dispensing Law and Its Impact on Oral Antibiotics Sales in Saudi Arabia.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore community pharmacists' views toward the antibiotics dispensing law that was enforced in May 2018 and bans the sale of antibiotics without a prescription in community pharmacy settings in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, the potential impact of the law enforcement on the sales of oral antibiotics in Saudi Arabia was also explored. METHODS: A questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was conducted between September 2019 and March 2020 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A multistage sampling technique was used to recruit community pharmacists from different districts. Pharmacists who consented to participate and reported practicing prior to the law enforcement were interviewed about their views of the law using a 14-item newly developed questionnaire. The annual sales of oral antibiotics for the years of 2017, 2018, and 2019 were retrieved from the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) database. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty six pharmacists consented to participate and met the inclusion criteria. After the law enforcement, approximately 51% of the participants reported that the percentage of patients seeking antibiotics without a prescription is less than 25%. Moreover, the majority (87.41%) reported a drop in the sales of antibiotics. Additionally, about 90% of the participants believed that the rate of inappropriate use of antibiotics will decrease as a result of the law enforcement. About 41% of the participants reported that the law has negatively impacted their pharmacies' profits. The sales of oral antibiotics have seen a 16.6% drop in the year of 2019 as compared to 2017. CONCLUSION: The antibiotics dispensing law is favorably perceived among community pharmacists in Saudi Arabia despite some concerns about its impact on their sales. Exploring different business models that delink the profits from the volume of antibiotics sales is necessary for this vital industry to thrive.