ArticleAdvances in therapy2025
Cost-Effectiveness of Vibrant System vs. Linaclotide in Chronic Idiopathic Constipation.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Socioeconomic value of treatments for chronic idiopathic constipation in Japan.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionChronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a common disorder that has a large unmet clinical need, affecting 8.0-12.0% of the US population and disproportionately affecting female individuals more than male individuals. Patients and physicians are equally dissatisfied with over-the-counter and prescription treatments. Physician dissatisfaction is at 78%. CIC has a significant negative impact on quality of life (QoL). The objective of this analysis was to compare the total cost and QoL of the Vibrant System vs. linaclotide, over 1-3 years of treatment.
methodsMarkov models were utilized to project 1-3-year US costs and health outcomes (quality adjusted life years, QALYs) comparing the Vibrant System to the current standard of care pharmacologic therapy (linaclotide). One model examined direct (D) costs plus QALYs. Direct (D) costs included list price of product and medical treatment costs due to adverse events. Costs (D) were as of 2024; derived from the medical literature. A second model examined D as well as indirect (I) costs (absenteeism, presenteeism) [D + I] and QALYs. Longitudinal 12-month persistence prescription data for linaclotide was obtained from IQVIA claims data. The Vibrant System persistence data was derived from post market collection. One-way sensitivity analyses were also performed.
resultsYears 1-3 direct costs were lower with Vibrant System with improved QALYs. Cumulative D + I data analysis for the Vibrant System at 12 months, and for years 2 and 3 show increased cost savings from $345 to $3866 with improved effectiveness.
conclusionOn the basis of lower costs and improved QALYs, the Vibrant System should be considered a first-line therapy for CIC and should be covered by insurers.
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.