Abstract
Growing studies have demonstrated clinical benefits of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) therapy (administered by colonoscopy, enema, or both) for active ulcerative colitis (UC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of standard treatment with and without FMT therapy for mild-to-moderate active UC from the perspective of US healthcare provider. A 10-year Markov model was developed to evaluate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of standard treatment plus FMT therapy versus standard treatment alone. Model inputs were retrieved from publish data in literature. Base-case and sensitivity analyses were performed. In the base-case analysis, standard treatment plus FMT therapy was more effective than standard treatment alone (by 0.068 QALYs). Comparing to standard treatment alone, standard treatment plus FMT therapy varied from cost-saving to incremental cost, subject to the number of FMT administrations. One-way sensitivity analysis identified the relative risk of achieving remission with FMT therapy to be the most influential factor on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of standard treatment plus FMT therapy. Monte-Carlo simulations showed that standard treatment plus FMT therapy with 3 and 6 administrations per FMT course was cost-effective (at willingness-to-pay threshold=50000 USD/QALY) in 90.77% and 67.03% of time, respectively. Standard treatment plus FMT therapy appears to be more effective in gaining higher QALYs than standard therapy alone for patients with mild-to-moderate active UC. Cost-effectiveness of standard treatment plus FMT therapy is highly subject to the relative improvement in achieving remission with standard therapy plus FMT therapy and number of FMT administrations per FMT course.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.