ArticleJournal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA2024
Comparison between washed microbiota transplantation and infliximab: Medical cost during long-term management in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.
Article in Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current Perspectives on the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Pathogenesis of Microbiota and the Gut-Brain Axis, and Emerging Therapeutics.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Health economic evaluations of fecal microbiota transplantation for non-clostridioides difficile related diseases: a systematic review.Health economics review · 2025Article
- Intestinal Microbiota and Fecal Transplantation in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease andJournal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBoth infliximab (IFX) and fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) have shown the efficacy for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, there has no head-to-head study on the cost-value of the such treatments on IBD. This study aimed to compare the medical costs using IFX and the new method of FMT (washed microbiota transplantation [WMT]) in the long-term management for IBD under the current health economic condition in China.
methodsPatients with IBD who underwent initial WMT via upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, mid-gut tube, or colonic transendoscopic enteral tubing at a university hospital between April 2013 and August 2021 and achieved the long-term sustainment with WMT or WMT combined with mesalazine until August 2022 were recruited in the real-world. The costs and hospitalizations were analyzed among two therapies mentioned above and IFX standard therapy. The charge of WMT was stable in the long term at our center, and the charge of IFX came from virtual statistics publicized by China Healthcare Security.
resultsSixty eligible patients with IBD were included in the study. The long-term costs of patients using WMT monotherapy annually or per hospitalization were lower than those on WMT combined with mesalazine, respectively ( p < 0.001, respectively). The cumulative costs of IFX at the time of 0.52 and 0.85 years exceeded that of the above WMT, respectively ( p < 0.001, respectively). Besides, patients on WMT monotherapy paid 51.1 k CNY annually in the nonsustain phase but cut down the costs by 7.2 k CNY and duration of hospitalization by 5.1 days per hospitalization when reaching the goal of sustainment.
conclusionThis study demonstrated that WMT could dramatically reduce the cost and duration of hospitalizations in the long-term sustainment in the current Chinese IBD cohort. Compared with IFX, WMT could be a good way for the patients with IBD achieving long-term sustainment and saving medical costs.
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.