MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

179 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Starting a Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT) Unit for the Treatment of Recurrent C. difficile Infection Compared With Antibiotic Therapy

2019· article· en· W2979381212 on OpenAlexaff
Seth R. Shaffer, David T. Rubin, Laura E. Targownik, Harminder Singh, Julia Witt, Dina Kao, Christine Lee, Çharles N. Bernstein

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFidaxomicinColonoscopyVancomycinEnemaSurgeryCost effectivenessColectomyInternal medicineIntensive care medicineColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Despite the proven efficacy of FMT in recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), many hospitals and health regions have yet to establish a program for its use. We assessed the cost effectiveness of FMT (including start-up costs) for recurrent CDI (rCDI) to determine how many patients would need to be treated to make this approach cost effective for a centre. METHODS: We conducted a decision-analytic model comparing six separate strategies for the management of the third recurrence of CDI: each FMT modality (via capsule, enema (Figure 1), or colonoscopy) versus vancomycin, fidaxomicin, and a combined antibiotic model of vancomycin followed by fidaxomicin. At the end of the decision tree, the patient would be in one of 4 health conditions: healthy, mild-to-moderate CDI, post-colectomy, or death. Costs for a FMT start up centre (preparation of donor material, screening costs, etc. Table 1) were calculated over 10 years, and discounted at 5%/year. Our primary outcome was to estimate how many patients would have to be treated with FMT on an annual basis to make a FMT centre cost-effective (WTP of $50,000/QALY) versus antibiotic therapy for the treatment of rCDI. RESULTS: To make any of the FMT modalities cost-effective compared with vancomycin treatment, 26 patients would have to be treated with FMT via enema annually, 32 via capsule, and 31 via colonoscopy (Figure 2). In our base case analysis of all three FMT modalities treating 40 patients/year compared with vancomycin, FMT via enema was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness rate (ICER) of $21,366.03, followed by ICERs of $37,911.01, and $37,743.24 via capsule and colonoscopy, respectively. Treatment with fidaxomicin in these patients was both more expensive and less effective than FMT, as it was dominated by all 3 FMT modalities. When patients were initially treated with vancomycin followed by fidaxomicin if they failed vancomycin, FMT via enema dominated. CONCLUSION: FMT, including start-up and ongoing costs, is cost-effective compared to conventional antibiotics in the treatment of recurrent CDI. Only 26 patients are required to be treated each year with FMT via enema for it to be a cost-effective strategy for rCDI. In healthcare regions where FMT is not currently a therapeutic option, this analysis suggests that despite its higher initial costs, starting up a FMT unit will lead to healthcare savings over time.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.008
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research→French-language works237,207→