ArticleBMC gastroenterology2025
Socioeconomic value of treatments for chronic idiopathic constipation in Japan.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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.
- Constipation in Older Adults: Pathophysiology, Clinical Impact, and Management Strategies.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a common disorder associated with socioeconomic burden. The aim of this study was to quantify the socioeconomic burden of CIC, including non-traditional value elements, and to compare the cost-effectiveness of 3 treatments for CIC with unique mechanisms of action: elobixibat 10 mg, linaclotide 0.5 mg, and lubiprostone 48 μg.
methodsWe compared medical costs and CIC-specific quality of life (QoL) among patients treated with elobixibat 10 mg, linaclotide 0.5 mg, and lubiprostone 48 μg using a Markov cohort simulation model of 4 mutually exclusive health states (CIC, unimproved, improved, and death) with 4-week cycles and a 2-year time horizon. In addition to costs and QoL scores, which were discounted at 2.0% per year, we considered productivity loss and caregiver burden for patients requiring assistance with daily living and defecation management.
resultsPatients treated with elobixibat 10 mg showed lower total costs and better QoL than those treated with linaclotide 0.5 mg (+ 76,241 Japanese yen [JPY], QoL + 0.034) and lubiprostone 48 μg (JPY + 62,050, QoL + 0.014). The deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that the base-case results were generally robust to changes in most input parameters but were sensitive to the effectiveness of elobixibat and lubiprostone; effectiveness of - 20% for elobixibat and + 20% for lubiprostone resulted in higher costs and poorer QoL for elobixibat 10 mg than lubiprostone 48 μg. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that approximately 72.3% and 64.0% of observations showed better QoL for elobixibat 10 mg than linaclotide 0.5 mg and lubiprostone 48 μg, respectively. Scenario analyses in which no discounting was applied and higher mortality for unimproved patients was assumed yielded similar results to the base-case analysis.
conclusionsConsidering CIC-related medical costs, QoL, productivity loss, and caregiver burden, elobixibat 10 mg is associated with better QoL and lower costs than linaclotide 0.5 mg and lubiprostone 48 μg.
trial registrationThis trial was registered with the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, registration number UMIN000055903 (registration date: 21 October 2024).
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.