ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2018
The Cost Effectiveness of Lubiprostone in Chronic Idiopathic Constipation.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-utility analysis of treatment strategies for chronic constipation in Japan.Journal of gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Socioeconomic value of treatments for chronic idiopathic constipation in Japan.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Clinical Efficacy and Safety Profile of Prucalopride in Chronic Idiopathic Constipation.Cureus · 2019Review
- Lubiprostone in the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation: an update on health-related quality of life and patient-reported outcomes.Patient related outcome measures · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of lubiprostone, prucalopride, placebo and immediate referral to secondary care in chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) in an economic model that was used by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in developing guidance.
methodsWe developed a cohort state-transition model to reflect the treatment pathway in CIC from the UK NHS and personal social services perspective. Time on treatment was determined by a treatment continuation rule using data from an indirect comparison and survival curves fitted to long-term data. Quality of life was defined by whether CIC was resolved or unresolved, using published values. Costs were determined by drug acquisition costs, invasive procedures and healthcare resource use (associated with resolved or unresolved CIC), using published UK sources. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.
resultsOver a 10-year time horizon, lubiprostone was more costly and more effective than placebo and immediate referral to secondary care, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of £58,979 and £21,152. Lubiprostone dominated prucalopride in the base case and with a time horizon of 1 year. The main sensitivity for the comparison against placebo was the assumptions around placebo cost and efficacy. The main sensitivity for the comparison against prucalopride was the endpoint used in the indirect comparison.
conclusionLubiprostone may be cost effective compared with prucalopride or immediate referral but not compared with placebo in the base case. The implementation of the guidance issued by NICE should increase quality of life for patients with CIC and provide a further treatment option.
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.