Fecal microbiota transplantation in the treatment of Crohn disease.

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is an alternative treatment option with minimal risk for patients with Crohn disease. This article explains FMT and how it effectively targets the gut microbiota changes associated with the pathogenesis of Crohn disease.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients are at risk for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (RCDI). We aimed to evaluate the potential health economic and clinical outcomes of four strategies for management of RCDI in IBD patients from the perspective of public health-care provider in Hong Kong. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was designed to simulate outcomes of adult IBD patients with first RCDI treated with vancomycin, vancomycin plus bezlotoxumab, fidaxomicin and fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT). Model inputs were derived from literature and public data. Primary model outcomes were C. difficile infection (CDI)-related direct medical cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) loss. Base-case and sensitivity analysis were performed. RESULTS: Comparing to vancomycin, fidaxomicin and vancomycin plus bezlotoxumab, FMT saved 0.00318, 0.00149 and 0.00306 QALYs and reduced cost by USD3180, USD3790 and USD5514, respectively, in base-case analysis. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, FMT was cost-saving when comparing to vancomycin, fidaxomicin and vancomycin plus bezlotoxumab by USD3765 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3732-3798; P < 0.001), USD3854 (95%CI 3827-3883; P < 0.001) and USD6501 (95%CI 6465-6,536; P < 0.001), respectively. The QALYs saved by FMT (vs vancomycin) were 0.00386 QALYs (95%CI 0.00384-0.00388; P < 0.001), (vs fidaxomicin) 0.00179 QALYs (95%CI 0.00177-0.00180; P < 0.001) and (vs vancomycin plus bezlotoxumab) 0.00376 QALYs (95%CI 0.00374-0.00378; P < 0.001). FMT was found to save QALYs at lower cost in 99.3% (vs vancomycin), 99.7% (vs fidaxomicin) and 100.0% (vs vancomycin plus bezlotoxumab) of the 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations. CONCLUSIONS: FMT for IBD patients with RCDI appeared to save both direct medical cost and QALYs when comparing to vancomycin (with or without bezlotoxumab) and fidaxomicin.

A systematic review of economic evaluation in fecal microbiota transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is an effective therapy in recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (rCDI). It is only recommended for this indication by European and American guidelines. Other indications of FMT are being studied, such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and they have shown promising results. OBJECTIVES: To identify and review published FMT-related economic evaluations (EEs) to assess their quality and the economic impact of FMT in the treatment of these diseases. DATA SOURCES: The systematic literature research was conducted in both PubMed and Cochrane to identify EEs published before July 1, 2019. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles were included if they concerned FMT (whatever the disease and its line of treatment), if they reported full or partial EEs, and if they were written in English. Articles were excluded if they did not concern FMT; if they did not report an EE; or if they were a systematic review, editorial, comment, letter to the editor, practice point, or poster. METHODS: A measurement tool, AMSTAR, was used to optimize the quality of this systematic review. Based on the CHEERS checklist, data were identified and extracted from articles. The quality of each EE was assessed using the Drummond checklist. RESULTS: Overall, 9 EEs were included: all EEs were full evaluations and 8 were cost-utility analyses (CUAs). All EEs had a Drummond score ≥ 7, which indicated high quality. All CUAs related to rCDI and IBD concluded that FMT was cost-effective compared with other reference treatments, at a threshold ≤$50,000/QALY. One EE about initial CDI showed that FMT was dominated by metronidazole. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a limited number of EEs, FMT seems to be a promising and cost-effective treatment for rCDI. More EE studies on other diseases like IBD are necessary to address FMT efficiency for new indications. Therefore, our systematic review provides a framework for healthcare decision making.

Fecal Transplants by Colonoscopy and Capsules Are Cost-Effective Strategies for Treating Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections (CDIs) occur frequently and pose a substantial economic burden on the US healthcare system. The landscape for the treatment of CDI is evolving. AIM: To elucidate the most cost-effective strategy for managing recurrent CDI. METHODS: A decision tree analysis was created from a modified third-party payer's perspective to compare the cost-effectiveness of five strategies for patients experiencing their first CDI recurrence: oral vancomycin, fidaxomicin, fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) via colonoscopy, FMT via oral capsules, and a one-time infusion of bezlotoxumab with vancomycin. Effectiveness measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALY). A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY was set. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Base-case analysis showed that FMT via colonoscopy was associated with the lowest cost at $5250 and that FMT via capsules was also a cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $31205/QALY. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that FMT delivered by oral capsules and colonoscopy was comparable cost-effective modalities. At its current cost and effectiveness, bezlotoxumab was not a cost-effective strategy. CONCLUSIONS: FMT via oral capsules and colonoscopy is both cost-effective strategies to treat the first recurrence of CDI. Further real-world economic studies are needed to understand the cost-effectiveness of all available strategies.

[Pharmaceutical system of fecal microbiota transplantation: Heterogeneous practices]. / Circuit pharmaceutique, transplantation de microbiote fécal : Des pratiques hétérogènes.

OBJECTIVE: To describe current pharmaceutical practice in French hospitals regarding fecal microbiota transplantation in terms of prescription, preparation and compounding, as well as local legislation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A national survey was conducted at 28 French university hospital centers followed by the sending of a GoogleForm® questionnaire from June to August 2018 in the 16 respondent centers either performing or subcontracting fecal microbiota transplant. RESULTS: All hospitals performing or subcontracting fecal transplant (n=16,%57) report prescription indication of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection treatment, and 6 of them also as part of a clinical trial protocol. In hospitals performing fecal transplant themselves (n=11), the number of pre-donation consultations with donors varies from one (n=6) to two (n=5). Fecal sample is collected at the donor's home in 45% of cases. Route of administration for transplant is either naso-gastric administration (n=4), rectal (n=4) or both (n=5). Fecal samples for transplant are compounded either in the hospital pharmacy (n=73%) or in the laboratory (27%). Thawing methods include refrigeration between 2-8°C (50%), room temperature (25%) and water bath (25%). Billing system and reporting to health authorities are highly heterogeneous from one hospital to another. CONCLUSION: This survey shows significant pharmaceutical practice heterogeneity within French hospitals regarding fecal microbiota transplantation despite the existence of national and European recommendations.

Reducing Cost and Complexity of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Using Universal Donors for Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection.

INTRODUCTION: Fecal microbiota transplantation resolves recurrent Clostridium difficile infections in greater than 82% of patients. Highly screened, processed universal donor fecal material is available. We compared cost and scheduling efficiency of fecal microbiota transplantation by universal donors to patient-directed donors. METHODS: Medical records from a prospectively maintained database of recurrent C. difficile patients who underwent fecal microbiota transplantation between 2012 and 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient-directed donor stool was prepared in our microbiology laboratory using protocol-based screening. We transitioned to purchasing and using universal donor fecal material in 2015. Clinical outcomes, adverse events, time between consult to infusion, consultation fees, and material costs were compared. This was a retrospective comparison of two historical cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 111 fecal microbiota transplantations were performed on 105 patients (56 from patient-directed donors and 55 from universal donors). Median recipient age was 66 years (18-96) with male to female ratio of 1:2.7, equivalent in both cohorts. Total consultation fees were significantly lower in the universal donor group owing to fewer infectious disease consultations. Costs for donor screening and stool preparation were lower in the universal donor cohort ($485.0 vs. $1189.90 ± 541.4, p < 0.001, 95% CI 559.9-849.9). Time from consultations to infusion was shorter in the universal donor cohort (18.9 ± 19.1 vs. 36.4 ± 23.3 days, p < 0.001, 95% CI 9.521-25.591). Recurrences within 8 weeks after fecal microbiota transplantation were equivalent (p = 0.354). Adverse events were equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: Fecal microbiota transplantation using universal donors versus patient-directed donors for recurrent C. difficile showed comparable efficacy and short-term complications. The use of universal donors resulted in significant cost savings and scheduling efficiency.

Fecal microbiota transplantation donation: the gift that keeps on giving.

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is being studied and utilized for various medical conditions including Clostridium difficile colitis, inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), obesity, myasthenia gravis, and so on. Yet, FMT donation, whether from an individual or a stool bank, can be challenging given the numerous requirements and donor costs. Furthermore, data outcomes on recipients of FMT regarding donor's health co-morbidities, age, and weight are limited but emerging. The purpose of this review is to evaluate cost, safety, and accessibility in FMT donation.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ribotype-guided fecal microbiota transplantation in Chinese patients with severe Clostridium difficile infection.

BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) caused by ribotype 002 strain is associated with poor outcomes in Chinese patients. Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is an effective but costly treatment for CDI. We aimed to examine potential cost-effectiveness of ribotype-guided FMT in Chinese patients with severe CDI. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was designed to simulate outcomes of ribotype 002-guided FMT versus vancomycin treatment in Chinese patients with severe CDI in the hospital setting. Outcome measures included mortality rate; direct medical cost; and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) loss for CDI. Sensitivity analysis was performed to examine robustness of base-case results. RESULTS: Comparing to vancomycin treatment, ribotype-guided FMT group reduced mortality (11.6% versus 17.1%), cost (USD8,807 versus USD9,790), and saved 0.472 QALYs in base-case analysis. One-way sensitivity analysis found the ribotype-guided FMT group to remain cost-effective when patient acceptance rate of FMT was >0.6% and ribotype 002 prevalence was >0.07%. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, ribotype-guided FMT gained higher QALYs at 100% of simulations with mean QALY gain of 0.405 QALYs (95%CI: 0.400-0.410; p<0.001). The ribotype-guided group was less costly in 97.9% of time, and mean cost-saving was USA679 (95%CI: 670-688; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the present model, ribotype-guided FMT appears to be a potential option to save QALYs and cost when comparing with vancomycin. The cost-effectiveness of ribotype-guided FMT is subject to the patient acceptance to FMT and prevalence of ribotype 002.

Cost-Effectiveness of Competing Treatment Strategies for Clostridium difficile Infection: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) presents a substantial economic burden and is associated with significant morbidity. While multiple treatment strategies have been evaluated, a cost-effective management strategy remains unclear. OBJECTIVE We conducted a systematic review to assess cost-effectiveness analyses of CDI treatment and to summarize key issues for clinicians and policy makers to consider. METHODS We searched PubMed and 5 other databases from inception to August 2016. These searches were not limited by study design or language of publication. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, abstracted data, and assessed methodological quality using the Drummond and Jefferson checklist. We extracted data on study characteristics, type of CDI, treatment characteristics, and model structure and inputs. RESULTS We included 14 studies, and 13 of these were from high-income countries. More than 90% of these studies were deemed moderate-to-high or high quality. Overall, 6 studies used a decision-tree model and 7 studies used a Markov model. Cost of therapy, time horizon, treatment cure rates, and recurrence rates were common influential factors in the study results. For initial CDI, fidaxomicin was a more cost-effective therapy than metronidazole or vancomycin in 2 of 3 studies. For severe initial CDI, 2 of 3 studies found fidaxomicin to be the most cost-effective therapy. For recurrent CDI, fidaxomicin was cost-effective in 3 of 5 studies, while fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) by colonoscopy was consistently cost-effective in 4 of 4 studies. CONCLUSIONS The cost-effectiveness of fidaxomicin compared with other pharmacologic therapies was not definitive for either initial or recurrent CDI. Despite its high cost, FMT by colonoscopy may be a cost-effective therapy for recurrent CDI. A consensus on model design and assumptions are necessary for future comparison of CDI treatment. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:412-424.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Five Competing Strategies for the Management of Multiple Recurrent Community-Onset Clostridium difficile Infection in France.

BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is characterized by high rates of recurrence, resulting in substantial health care costs. The aim of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of treatments for the management of second recurrence of community-onset CDI in France. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic simulation model to compare 5 treatments for the management of second recurrence of community-onset CDI: pulsed-tapered vancomycin, fidaxomicin, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) via colonoscopy, FMT via duodenal infusion, and FMT via enema. The model outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) among the 5 treatments. ICERs were interpreted using a willingness-to-pay threshold of €32,000/QALY. Uncertainty was evaluated through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Three strategies were on the efficiency frontier: pulsed-tapered vancomycin, FMT via enema, and FMT via colonoscopy, in order of increasing effectiveness. FMT via duodenal infusion and fidaxomicin were dominated (i.e. less effective and costlier) by FMT via colonoscopy and FMT via enema. FMT via enema compared with pulsed-tapered vancomycin had an ICER of €18,092/QALY. The ICER for FMT via colonoscopy versus FMT via enema was €73,653/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations showed that FMT via enema was the most cost-effective strategy in 58% of simulations and FMT via colonoscopy was favored in 19% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €32,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: FMT via enema is the most cost-effective initial strategy for the management of second recurrence of community-onset CDI at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €32,000/QALY.

Fecal Microbiota Therapy for Clostridium difficile Infection: A Health Technology Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Fecal microbiota therapy is increasingly being used to treat patients with Clostridium difficile infection. This health technology assessment primarily evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of fecal microbiota therapy compared with the usual treatment (antibiotic therapy). METHODS: We performed a literature search using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, CRD Health Technology Assessment Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and NHS Economic Evaluation Database. For the economic review, we applied economic filters to these search results. We also searched the websites of agencies for other health technology assessments. We conducted a meta-analysis to analyze effectiveness. The quality of the body of evidence for each outcome was examined according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. Using a step-wise, structural methodology, we determined the overall quality to be high, moderate, low, or very low. We used a survey to examine physicians' perception of patients' lived experience, and a modified grounded theory method to analyze information from the survey. RESULTS: For the review of clinical effectiveness, 16 of 1,173 citations met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of two randomized controlled trials found that fecal microbiota therapy significantly improved diarrhea associated with recurrent C. difficile infection versus treatment with vancomycin (relative risk 3.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85-5.68) (GRADE: moderate). While fecal microbiota therapy is not associated with a significant decrease in mortality compared with antibiotic therapy (relative risk 0.69, 95% CI 0.14-3.39) (GRADE: low), it is associated with a significant increase in adverse events (e.g., short-term diarrhea, relative risk 30.76, 95% CI 4.46-212.44; abdominal cramping, relative risk 14.81, 95% CI 2.07-105.97) (GRADE: low). For the value-for-money component, two of 151 economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. One reported that fecal microbiota therapy was dominant (more effective and less expensive) compared with vancomycin; the other reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $17,016 USD per quality-adjusted life-year for fecal microbiota therapy compared with vancomycin. This ratio for the second study indicated that there would be additional cost associated with each recurrent C. difficile infection resolved. In Ontario, if fecal microbiota therapy were adopted to treat recurrent C. difficile infection, considering it from the perspective of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care as the payer, an estimated $1.5 million would be saved after the first year of adoption and $2.9 million after 3 years. The contradiction between the second economic evaluation and the savings we estimated may be a result of the lower cost of fecal microbiota therapy and hospitalization in Ontario compared with the cost of therapy used in the US model. Physicians reported that C. difficile infection significantly reduced patients' quality of life. Physicians saw fecal microbiota therapy as improving patients' quality of life because patients could resume daily activities. Physicians reported that their patients were happy with the procedures required to receive fecal microbiota therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recurrent C. difficile infection, fecal microbiota therapy improves outcomes that are important to patients and provides good value for money.

Economic evaluation of fecal microbiota transplantation for the treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection in Australia.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Clostridium difficile is the most common cause of hospital-acquired diarrhea in Australia. In 2013, a randomized controlled trial demonstrated the effectiveness of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for the treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of fecal microbiota transplantation-via either nasoduodenal or colorectal delivery-compared with vancomycin for the treatment of recurrent CDI in Australia. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of fecal microbiota transplantation compared with standard antibiotic therapy. A literature review of clinical evidence informed the structure of the model and the choice of parameter values. Clinical effectiveness was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years. Uncertainty in the model was explored using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Both nasoduodenal and colorectal FMT resulted in improved quality of life and reduced cost compared with vancomycin. The incremental effectiveness of either FMT delivery compared with vancomycin was 1.2 (95% CI: 0.1, 2.3) quality-adjusted life years, or 1.4 (95% CI: 0.4, 2.4) life years saved. Treatment with vancomycin resulted in an increased cost of AU$4094 (95% CI: AU$26, AU$8161) compared with nasoduodenal delivery of FMT and AU$4045 (95% CI: -AU$33, AU$8124) compared with colorectal delivery. The mean difference in cost between colorectal and nasoduodenal FMT was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: If FMT, rather than vancomycin, became standard care for recurrent CDI in Australia, the estimated national healthcare savings would be over AU$4000 per treated person, with a substantial increase in quality of life.

Cost Averted With Timely Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in the Management of Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection in Alberta, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is highly effective in treating recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (RCDI). However, the ideal timing for offering FMT remains to be determined. Furthermore, the direct medical costs averted with timely FMT have not been examined. METHODS: A retrospective review of the Edmonton FMT program database included patients who received FMT for RCDI (October 2012 to September 2014). They were divided into 2 groups: those who received FMT after 2 recurrences (the timely FMT group) and those who received FMT after at least 3 recurrences (the delayed FMT group). The primary outcome was the difference in direct medical costs related to hospital admissions and emergency room visits due to CDI between the 2 groups. The secondary outcomes were RCDI cure rate and duration of RCDI in each group. RESULTS: A total of 75 patients were included: 30 received timely FMT, whereas 45 received delayed FMT. The mean difference in hospital length of stay and emergency room visits related to CDI were 13.8 days shorter and 1.3 visits fewer with timely FMT, associated with a mean cost saving of $29,842 per patient. Sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the effect of outliers and comorbities on the differential costs, and it was found that the differences in average cost per patient were more pronounced in those with Charlson comorbidity index ≥3 compared with those with scores of 0 to 2. The cure rate was 94% (timely FMT group) and 93% (delayed FMT group). The mean duration of RCDI was 109 days (timely FMT group) and 281 days (delayed FMT group). CONCLUSIONS: Timely FMT can provide significant cost savings to health-care systems, especially for patients with multiple comorbidities.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Six Strategies to Treat Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of six treatment strategies for patients diagnosed with recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in Canada: 1. oral metronidazole; 2. oral vancomycin; 3.oral fidaxomicin; 4. fecal transplantation by enema; 5. fecal transplantation by nasogastric tube; and 6. fecal transplantation by colonoscopy. PERSPECTIVE: Public insurer for all hospital and physician services. SETTING: Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A decision analytic model was used to model costs and lifetime health effects of each strategy for a typical patient experiencing up to three recurrences, over 18 weeks. Recurrence data and utilities were obtained from published sources. Cost data was obtained from published sources and hospitals in Toronto, Canada. The willingness-to-pay threshold was $50,000/QALY gained. RESULTS: Fecal transplantation by colonoscopy dominated all other strategies in the base case, as it was less costly and more effective than all alternatives. After accounting for uncertainty in all model parameters, there was an 87% probability that fecal transplantation by colonoscopy was the most beneficial strategy. If colonoscopy was not available, fecal transplantation by enema was cost-effective at $1,708 per QALY gained, compared to metronidazole. In addition, fecal transplantation by enema was the preferred strategy if the probability of recurrence following this strategy was below 8.7%. If fecal transplantation by any means was unavailable, fidaxomicin was cost-effective at an additional cost of $25,968 per QALY gained, compared to metronidazole. CONCLUSION: Fecal transplantation by colonoscopy (or enema, if colonoscopy is unavailable) is cost-effective for treating recurrent CDI in Canada. Where fecal transplantation is not available, fidaxomicin is also cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection.

OBJECTIVE: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) places a high burden on the US healthcare system. Recurrent CDI (RCDI) occurs frequently. Recently proposed guidelines from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and the American Gastroenterology Association (AGA) include fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) as a therapeutic option for RCDI. The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of FMT compared with vancomycin for the treatment of RCDI in adults, specifically following guidelines proposed by the ACG and AGA. DESIGN: We constructed a decision-analytic computer simulation using inputs from the published literature to compare the standard approach using tapered vancomycin to FMT for RCDI from the third-party payer perspective. Our effectiveness measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Because simulated patients were followed for 90 days, discounting was not necessary. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Base-case analysis showed that FMT was less costly ($1,669 vs $3,788) and more effective (0.242 QALYs vs 0.235 QALYs) than vancomycin for RCDI. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that FMT was the dominant strategy (both less expensive and more effective) if cure rates for FMT and vancomycin were ≥70% and <91%, respectively, and if the cost of FMT was <$3,206. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis, varying all parameters simultaneously, showed that FMT was the dominant strategy over 10, 000 second-order Monte Carlo simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that FMT may be a cost-saving intervention in managing RCDI. Implementation of FMT for RCDI may help decrease the economic burden to the healthcare system.