ArticleGastro hep advances2026
Cost Effectiveness of the 8-Strain Probiotic in Primary and Secondary Prophylaxis of Pouchitis.
Article in Gastro hep advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The 8-strain probiotic formulation appears to be effective for primary and secondary prevention of pouchitis in patients with ulcerative colitis after ileal pouch anal anastomosis. We aimed to study its cost-effectiveness compared to no prophylaxis in these settings. Methods: We constructed decision trees with Markov models for primary prevention of pouchitis and secondary prevention of relapsing pouchitis in patients with ulcerative colitis after ileal pouch anal anastomosis. All patients were followed for 2 years. In the primary prophylaxis model, Markov cycle length was 2 weeks and the pouchitis treatment sequence was ciprofloxacin, metronidazole and a combination of ciprofloxacin and tinidazole. In the secondary prophylaxis models, the Markov cycle length was 4 weeks and the pouchitis treatment sequence was ciprofloxacin, metronidazole, ciprofloxacin/tinidazole, vedolizumab and infliximab. Third-party payers' perspective with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was used. Frequent relapsing pouchitis was defined as ≥2 pouchitis episodes/year. Results: For primary prevention of pouchitis, no prophylaxis was more cost effective compared with the probiotic prophylaxis on base-case analysis (incremental cost effectiveness ratio $236,661/QALY). On base-case analysis for secondary prevention of pouchitis relapse in infrequent pouchitis, no prophylaxis was more cost effective compared to the probiotic prophylaxis (incremental cost effectiveness ratio $153,011/QALY). One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the probiotic prophylaxis would be the dominant strategy in patients with frequent relapsing pouchitis. Conclusion: Compared to no prophylaxis, the 8-strain probiotic is not cost-effective for primary prevention of pouchitis. It is cost-effective for secondary prophylaxis of frequent pouchitis but not for secondary prophylaxis of infrequent pouchitis.
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.