Trial reportClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2025
Cost-Effectiveness of Hospital-at-Home and Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in Treating Older Patients With Clostridioides difficile.
Trial report in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early health economic assessment of eLiActa neuropsychiatrica · 2026Article
- Increasing patient access to faecal microbiota transplantation with remote delivery: a cost analysis of outpatient versus home-based treatment.Health economics review · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClostridioides difficile infection (CDI) primarily affects older patients with comorbid conditions and has a high mortality rate. Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is effective and cost-effective for CDI. In a recent study, we demonstrated the clinical benefits of combining hospital-at-home care with FMT for older patients with CDI, but its cost-effectiveness remains unknown. The current study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the intervention in patients aged ≥70 years with CDI, compared with standard treatment.
methodsThe cost-utility analysis was conducted using data from a randomized clinical trial enrolling 217 patients, assessing the cost-effectiveness of the intervention over 90 days. Resource use was assessed from a healthcare sector perspective. Missing data were handled with proxy replacement and multiple imputation. Sensitivity analyses included probabilistic analysis, complete case analysis, adjustment of key unit prices, and a hospital perspective. A willingness-to-pay threshold was set to €22 994 or $24 863 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).
resultsIn the base case analysis, the intervention was dominant, with mean cost savings of €2556 ($2764) and a mean gain of 0.004 QALY. Although resource use was higher, the intervention resulted in an average reduction of 6 hospital admission days per patient and increased odds of clinical resolution. The results remained robust across different perspectives, the exclusion of patients with missing data, and variations in hospital admission costs.
conclusionsIn patients aged ≥70 years with CDI, an intervention combining hospital-at-home care and FMT is cost-effective compared with standard treatment. The cost-effectiveness is mainly driven by fewer hospital admission days.
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.