ArticlePloS one2018
Cost-effectiveness analysis of ribotype-guided fecal microbiota transplantation in Chinese patients with severe Clostridium difficile infection.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fecal microbiota transplantation for treatment of refractory or recurrentFrontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Risk Factors, Diagnosis, and Management ofMicroorganisms · 2022Review
- Economic burden and cost-effectiveness of therapies forTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Economic evaluation of Faecal microbiota transplantation compared to antibiotics for the treatment of recurrentEClinicalMedicine · 2020Article
- Cost-effectiveness of integrating gut microbiota analysis into hospitalisation prediction in cirrhosis.GastroHep · 2020Article
- Fecal microbiota transplantation as an effective initial therapy for pancreatitis complicated with severeWorld journal of clinical cases · 2019Review
- Cost savings following faecal microbiota transplantation for recurrentTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2019Article
- Recent advances in the treatment ofInfection and drug resistance · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClostridium difficile infection (CDI) caused by ribotype 002 strain is associated with poor outcomes in Chinese patients. Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is an effective but costly treatment for CDI. We aimed to examine potential cost-effectiveness of ribotype-guided FMT in Chinese patients with severe CDI.
methodsA decision-analytic model was designed to simulate outcomes of ribotype 002-guided FMT versus vancomycin treatment in Chinese patients with severe CDI in the hospital setting. Outcome measures included mortality rate; direct medical cost; and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) loss for CDI. Sensitivity analysis was performed to examine robustness of base-case results.
resultsComparing to vancomycin treatment, ribotype-guided FMT group reduced mortality (11.6% versus 17.1%), cost (USD8,807 versus USD9,790), and saved 0.472 QALYs in base-case analysis. One-way sensitivity analysis found the ribotype-guided FMT group to remain cost-effective when patient acceptance rate of FMT was >0.6% and ribotype 002 prevalence was >0.07%. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, ribotype-guided FMT gained higher QALYs at 100% of simulations with mean QALY gain of 0.405 QALYs (95%CI: 0.400-0.410; p<0.001). The ribotype-guided group was less costly in 97.9% of time, and mean cost-saving was USA679 (95%CI: 670-688; p<0.001).
conclusionsIn the present model, ribotype-guided FMT appears to be a potential option to save QALYs and cost when comparing with vancomycin. The cost-effectiveness of ribotype-guided FMT is subject to the patient acceptance to FMT and prevalence of ribotype 002.
Indexed as
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.