Cost-effectiveness analysis of Helicobacter pylori infection in peptic ulcer treatment program #215; 14 = 460.04 C = 0.23x16 14 +16.43 × 2 × 14 = 511.56 yuan. 2.1.3 Administration costs (c-) are the costs incurred by patients using medications. ABC0.00 $. 2.1.4 Time cost (c) refers to social and labor charges for the time required by patients throughout the treatment period. According to data released by the National Bureau of Statistics, the average annual wage of urban workers in China in 1994 was 4510.00 yuan]. The per capita average daily wage was 12.36 yuan, and for the three treatment regimens: ABC12.36 × 14 = 173.04. 2.1.5 Total costs (c}) are as follows: three kinds of treatment programs c NIE. A = 568.00 +51.52 +173.04 = 792.56 yuan; B = 568.00 +460.04 +173.04 = 1201.08 yuan; = 5 emu. 00 +5 l1.56 +173.04 = l252.60 yuan. 2.2 Efficacy determination 2.2.1Hp eradication after 6 ~ 8w, mucosal biopsy Hp were negative. 2.2.2 Ulcer disease cure is when ulcer lesions progress from active (A) to scar (S phase) or the lesions disappear after treatment. 2.3 Cost-effectiveness analysis aims to find the treatment plan that achieves therapeutic effect at the lowest cost. The cost-effectiveness ratio (CTE) links both cost and effectiveness organically, representing the cost per unit of effect. Different treatment options were analyzed and compared, some programs may spend a lot of cost and produce very good effects, but to increase the patient’s effect, spending needs to be increased. We should consider every increase in cost spent per unit of effect, that is, the growth in cost-effectiveness t ~ (/ xCt / XE), which represents the cost-effectiveness of one program compared with another and its results. The costs of the three kinds of treatment programs are arranged from low to high. With the lowest cost as a reference, the other two kinds of programs, by contrast, are shown in Table 1. Table 1 shows the cost-effectiveness analysis of three kinds of programs. 3 Discussion Table 1 shows that with the increase in costs, the effect also increased, but the cost-effectiveness ratio does not rise simultaneously, showing inconsistent results of Hp eradication rate and ulcer healing. The eradication effect of the program costs better than the highest C program cost-effectiveness than the minimum. From the ulcer healing effect, B programs cost-effectiveness is higher than the maximum program cost-effectiveness than the minimum. However, the best treatment cost-effectiveness analysis should also consider the growth of cost-effectiveness ratio, in order to identify the most reasonable treatment options. From the growth of cost-effectiveness analysis, the A program on the basis of more than one effect unit B program spends $17.76 or 51.07, while the C program only takes 6.57 yuan, or $18.40, this is worth it. For the treatment of Helicobacter pylori-positive peptic ulcer, the key lies in the eradication of Hp rather than just clearing of Hp, there is a consensus on this point. On eradication of Hp, in terms of cost-effectiveness ratio or growth cost-effectiveness ratio (see Table 1) are C programs. By the Hp-positive peptic ulcer therapy or combination therapy. In the cost analysis, a sensitivity analysis was also conducted to test various changes in cost analysis results. But in this experiment, administration costs were zero, while inspection fees were higher. So the significance of sensitivity analysis does not seem apparent. The role of pharmacoeconomics in optimizing treatment plans, guiding rational drug use, improving economic efficiency is undoubted. In clinical settings, we should pay more attention to pharmacoeconomics and enhance the awareness of clinical drug cost-effectiveness to ensure clinical safety, higher education, and economy.