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

Varier RU, Biltaji E, Smith KJ, Roberts MS, Kyle Jensen M, LaFleur J, Nelson RE. Cost-effectiveness analysis of fecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Infection control and hospital epidemiology. 2015 Apr 1; 36(4):438-44.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• CDA 11-210 – Using Economics and Epidemiology to Evaluate MRSA Decolonization in the VA

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

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.