Cargando…

Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Fecal Transplant Delivery Methods for Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infections in Outpatients

BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) accounts for more than $1 billion annually in US health care costs. Recurrent CDI (RCDI, recurrence within 8 weeks of initial treatment) contributes substantially to this cost. The objective of the study was to compare the cost effectiveness of FMT d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Walker, Jeremey, Gundacker, Nathan, Rodriguez, Martin, Eaton, Ellen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5630807/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.960
_version_ 1783269297975459840
author Walker, Jeremey
Gundacker, Nathan
Rodriguez, Martin
Eaton, Ellen
author_facet Walker, Jeremey
Gundacker, Nathan
Rodriguez, Martin
Eaton, Ellen
author_sort Walker, Jeremey
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) accounts for more than $1 billion annually in US health care costs. Recurrent CDI (RCDI, recurrence within 8 weeks of initial treatment) contributes substantially to this cost. The objective of the study was to compare the cost effectiveness of FMT delivered via colonoscopy vs. blind nasogastric tube (NGT) in outpatients. We hypothesized that FMT by NGT would be cost-effective given its low risk and simplicity. METHODS: A decision-analytic simulation model compared the cost effectiveness of FMT by colonoscopy vs. NGT from a third-party payer perspective. Our base case cure rates were derived from a cohort receiving outpatient RCDI treatment at our institution. Cure was defined as resolution of symptoms for ≥ 90 days. Procedural cost and consultation was defined by average reimbursement to a large southeastern medical center in 2016 USD based on current procedural terminology (CPT) codes, and cost of disease states were derived from published literature. Health utilities were defined by quality of life year (QALY) based on published literature. Incremental Cost Effectiveness ratio (ICER) was defined as the cost per additional QALY gained. We assumed a 90 day time horizon. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed on all variables using ranges defined by published literature. We used TreeAge Software (Williamstown, MA). RESULTS: In the base case, FMT by colonoscopy was dominant (more effective and less costly) than NGT, with cost of $1,568/QALY vs. $1,910/QALY respectively. Cure rates of FMT by colonoscopy vs. NGT (100% vs. 87%) had the largest impact on ICER based on one-way sensitivity analysis. Therefore, a subsequent two-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to compare cure rates of both delivery methods and found that NGT delivery is cost effective as cure rates approach colonoscopy delivery cure rates within 5 percentage points. CONCLUSION: Contrary to our hypothesis, our decision model supports FMT by colonoscopy as the preferred delivery method in outpatients with RCDI relative to NGT delivery. Additional costs of colonoscopy delivery are off-set by the improved cure rate leading to lower overall costs. As cure rates from NGT delivery are optimized, NGT may become the preferred method for FMT delivery. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5630807
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56308072017-11-07 Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Fecal Transplant Delivery Methods for Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infections in Outpatients Walker, Jeremey Gundacker, Nathan Rodriguez, Martin Eaton, Ellen Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) accounts for more than $1 billion annually in US health care costs. Recurrent CDI (RCDI, recurrence within 8 weeks of initial treatment) contributes substantially to this cost. The objective of the study was to compare the cost effectiveness of FMT delivered via colonoscopy vs. blind nasogastric tube (NGT) in outpatients. We hypothesized that FMT by NGT would be cost-effective given its low risk and simplicity. METHODS: A decision-analytic simulation model compared the cost effectiveness of FMT by colonoscopy vs. NGT from a third-party payer perspective. Our base case cure rates were derived from a cohort receiving outpatient RCDI treatment at our institution. Cure was defined as resolution of symptoms for ≥ 90 days. Procedural cost and consultation was defined by average reimbursement to a large southeastern medical center in 2016 USD based on current procedural terminology (CPT) codes, and cost of disease states were derived from published literature. Health utilities were defined by quality of life year (QALY) based on published literature. Incremental Cost Effectiveness ratio (ICER) was defined as the cost per additional QALY gained. We assumed a 90 day time horizon. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed on all variables using ranges defined by published literature. We used TreeAge Software (Williamstown, MA). RESULTS: In the base case, FMT by colonoscopy was dominant (more effective and less costly) than NGT, with cost of $1,568/QALY vs. $1,910/QALY respectively. Cure rates of FMT by colonoscopy vs. NGT (100% vs. 87%) had the largest impact on ICER based on one-way sensitivity analysis. Therefore, a subsequent two-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to compare cure rates of both delivery methods and found that NGT delivery is cost effective as cure rates approach colonoscopy delivery cure rates within 5 percentage points. CONCLUSION: Contrary to our hypothesis, our decision model supports FMT by colonoscopy as the preferred delivery method in outpatients with RCDI relative to NGT delivery. Additional costs of colonoscopy delivery are off-set by the improved cure rate leading to lower overall costs. As cure rates from NGT delivery are optimized, NGT may become the preferred method for FMT delivery. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2017-10-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5630807/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.960 Text en © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Abstracts
Walker, Jeremey
Gundacker, Nathan
Rodriguez, Martin
Eaton, Ellen
Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Fecal Transplant Delivery Methods for Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infections in Outpatients
title Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Fecal Transplant Delivery Methods for Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infections in Outpatients
title_full Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Fecal Transplant Delivery Methods for Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infections in Outpatients
title_fullStr Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Fecal Transplant Delivery Methods for Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infections in Outpatients
title_full_unstemmed Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Fecal Transplant Delivery Methods for Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infections in Outpatients
title_short Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Fecal Transplant Delivery Methods for Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infections in Outpatients
title_sort cost effectiveness analysis of fecal transplant delivery methods for recurrent clostridium difficile infections in outpatients
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5630807/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.960
work_keys_str_mv AT walkerjeremey costeffectivenessanalysisoffecaltransplantdeliverymethodsforrecurrentclostridiumdifficileinfectionsinoutpatients
AT gundackernathan costeffectivenessanalysisoffecaltransplantdeliverymethodsforrecurrentclostridiumdifficileinfectionsinoutpatients
AT rodriguezmartin costeffectivenessanalysisoffecaltransplantdeliverymethodsforrecurrentclostridiumdifficileinfectionsinoutpatients
AT eatonellen costeffectivenessanalysisoffecaltransplantdeliverymethodsforrecurrentclostridiumdifficileinfectionsinoutpatients