Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T08:01:36.559Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A systematic review of economic evaluation in fecal microbiota transplantation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2020

Thomas Stalder,
Nathalie Kapel,
Sophie Diaz,
Frédéric Grenouillet,
Stéphane Koch,
Samuel Limat,
Franck Daval,
Lucine Vuitton and
Virginie Nerich
Thomas Stalder
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France
Nathalie Kapel
Affiliation:
Department of Coprology, Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital, Paris, France
Sophie Diaz
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France
Frédéric Grenouillet
Affiliation:
Department of Parasitology and Mycology, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France
Stéphane Koch
Affiliation:
Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France
Samuel Limat
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, FranceINSERM, EFS BFC, UMR1098, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Besançon, France
Franck Daval
Affiliation:
University Library, University of Franche-Comté, Besançon, France
Lucine Vuitton
Affiliation:
Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France
Virginie Nerich*
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, FranceINSERM, EFS BFC, UMR1098, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Besançon, France
*
Author for correspondence: Virginie Nerich, E-mail: v1nerich@chu-besancon.fr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Information

Type
Review
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , April 2020, pp. 458 - 466
Copyright
© 2020 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved

In 2015 in the United States, the costs of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) and associated care were US$6.3 billion.Reference Ramai, Zakhia, Ofosu, Ofori and Reddy1 In Europe, these costs were estimated at €3 billion per year, ranging from €5,798 ($6,448) to €11,202 ($12,457)per episode.Reference Reigadas Ramírez and Bouza2 These costs are expected to nearly double over the next 40 years, depending on the increase of patients at risk of developing CDI. This potentially substantial increase may be explained by the number of elderly patients, antibiotic consumption, the development of resistance to conventional antibiotics (eg, metronidazole, vancomycin, and fidaxomicin), and the emergence of hypervirulent strains.Reference Reigadas Ramírez and Bouza2–Reference Mathias, Curti, Montana, Bornet and Vanelle4 The major problem with CDI is that despite adequate antibiotic therapy, 10%–30% of patients will experience a recurrence, with the risk approaching 60% after the third episode.Reference Cohen, Gerding and Johnson5

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is an effective therapy for CDI, leading to a significant reduction of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (rCDI) and reduced incidence of adverse events when compared to conventional antibiotics (eg, vancomycin and fidaxomicin).Reference Mathias, Curti, Montana, Bornet and Vanelle4,Reference Surawicz, Brandt and Binion6–Reference van Beurden, de Groot, van Nood, Nieuwdorp, Keller and Goorhuis8 FMT is currently recommended by both European and American guidelines for multiple rCDI.Reference Debast, Bauer and Kuijper9,Reference McDonald, Gerding and Johnson10 Other indications of FMT are being studied, such as inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs; eg, ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease), obesity, type 2 diabetes, or graft-versus-host disease.Reference Cammarota, Ianiro and Tilg11–Reference Moutinho, Baima and Rigo23 However, to date, FMT has not yet been recommended for use in daily practice for these diseases.

FMT is an intervention in which a fecal suspension from a healthy donor is transferred into the gut of a patient to replace depleted components of the gut microbiota.Reference Gupta, Allen-Vercoe and Petrof24 No general agreement has been reached on the best approach for delivering fecal microbiota nor on the optimal transplantation volume. Thus, various routes of administration have been described either via the upper or via the lower gastrointestinal (GI) tract. FMT via upper GI delivery methods include nasogastric tubes (FMTng) or duodenal infusion (FMTdi), whereas FMT via lower GI delivery methods mainly involve colonoscopy (FMTc) or enema (FMTen).Reference van Nood, Vrieze and Nieuwdorp25 More recently, randomized clinical trials have indicated that the use of oral capsules was not inferior to other modes of administration.Reference Youngster, Mahabamunuge and Systrom26–Reference Kao, Roach and Silva29

The status of FMT is different between countries. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada consider FMT a biological tissue; the American FDA considers it an investigational new drug; and the European Medicine Agency allows each country the possibility of assigning a qualification. In France, FMT is considered a drug.30–Reference Megerlin and Fouassier32

In the context of rational decision making in health care, and as an integral part of health technology assessment (HTA), the economic evaluation (EE) of healthcare products has become a necessity. One of the major challenges in healthcare research is to provide cost-effectiveness data that are relevant to daily practices and that may be required to optimize the consumption of healthcare resources. Decision making for coverage and reimbursement of new drugs is being increasingly supported by EE in many countries including Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom.Reference Greenberg, Earle, Fang, Eldar-Lissai and Neumann33,Reference Frederix, Severens, Hövels, Raaijmakers and Schellens34 The quality of EE must be high to instill trust in the accuracy of the results and to support informed decisions. Among several EE methods,35 the most common and recommended in HTA are cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and cost-utility analyses (CUAs).36 The choice of method depends on the nature of the expected health effects of the interventions under study. A CEA is required when health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is not identified as a relevant health effect of the studied interventions; health outcome is measured by the length of life in life years (LYs). Otherwise, CUA is the preferred method when HRQOL is identified as an important health effect of interventions; health outcome is measured by the length of life weighted by a valuation of the HRQOL, represented by health-state utility values (HSUVs), to produce quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs). The HSUV is measured on a scale anchored by 1 (best imaginable health state, ie, perfect health) and 0 (worst imaginable health state, ie, death) using patient preference-based measures.Reference Whitehead and Ali37

In this context, the aims of the present study were to systematically identify and review published FMT-related EEs and to assess their quality.

Method

We adopted an optimal method to enhance the quality of our systematic review based on modified AMSTAR, a reliable and valid measurement tool consisting of 11 items.Reference Shea, Grimshaw and Wells38

Search strategy

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Cochrane to identify published EEs. An articles was included if it concerned FMT (whatever the disease and its line of treatment), if it reported full or partial economic evaluations, and if it was written in English. An articles was excluded if it did not concern FMT, if it did not report an EE, or if it was a systematic review, an editorial, a comment, a letter to the editor, a practice point, or a poster.

Medical subject headings (MeSH) terms were individually selected using the National Library of Medicine controlled vocabulary thesaurus used for indexing articles for PubMed, (ie, MeSH database) before being combined: (1) cost–benefit analysis or economic evaluation or cost effectiveness or cost analysis or cost savings and (2) fecal microbiota transplantation or fecal transplantation or fecal transplant). The full request in both electronic sources PubMed and Cochrane is presented in Appendix A (online).

Article selection

The titles and abstracts of all identified articles were screened and analyzed by 1 reviewer (S.D.) and checked by a second reviewer (V.N.) to determine whether each article corresponded to the previously defined topic and whether it was an original EE. Second, after initial screening, the full text of each selected article was independently analyzed by both reviewers. In addition, the reference lists of all selected studies were screened to identify other potentially relevant articles that had not been identified by the 2 electronic means. Consensus was reached in cases of disagreement between the 2 reviewers. The main reason for excluding a given article was recorded.

Data extraction

Based on the CHEERS checklist, the following data were identified and extracted from each selected article: year of publication; journal; main location of the first author; sponsor; conflict of interest; topic (ie, CDI or IBD); line of treatment (ie, initial or recurrent for CDI); aim(s) of the EE; examination of both the costs and the consequences of alternative interventions; examination and comparison of at least 2 interventions; type of EE (full, including CEA, cost-minimization analysis, CUA, cost–benefit analysis; or partial, including cost description [ie, cost-of-illness], cost analysis and cost–outcome description); number of interventions compared ≥ 2; compared interventions; population analyzed (hypothetical cohort of patients, patients included in a clinical trial, patients of a national or a local institution); perspective (ie, the point of view from which the costs and health effects are recorded and assessed: societal, healthcare system); country and continent of origin; time horizon (ie, the period during which patients were followed measuring costs and health effects, long enough to reflect all expected differences between the interventions being compared); main data source of costs (derived from local databases(s), national database(s), the literature, etc); year of reference for costs; main data source of effectiveness (derived from the results of clinical trial(s), literature, original study), and especially health-state utility values if applicable; decision making analysis model (yes or no); Markov model in medical decision-making (yes or no); discounting of costs and effectiveness (ie, the reflection of the present value of future costs and health effects) and discount rate; results in terms of costs; effectiveness (LY, QALY, etc) and cost-effectiveness (ICER) or cost-utility (ICUR); and difference between ICER and ICUR according to the threshold and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (ie, the characterization of uncertainty; yes [complete], yes [partial], no, and not assessable).

A dominant strategy is both less expensive and more effective than the comparator strategy, whatever the willingness-to-pay threshold. On the contrary, a strategy that is both more expensive and less effective is classified as “dominated.” After ICER analysis, if the strategy is most effective but more costly than the comparator strategy, dominance can be extended to specific willingness-to-pay threshold. Extended dominance rules out any strategy with a higher ICER than a more effective strategy.

To allow direct comparisons across countries, all costs were converted to US dollars and then inflated to the reference year of 2019.Reference Husereau, Drummond and Petrou39,40

Quality assessment of the economic evaluations

A critical appraisal of the methodological quality of health economic evaluations is not simple to carry out, and it may depend on the subjective performance of the evaluator. As previously described, using the Drummond checklist as a scoring system has the advantage of allowing a comparison between different EEs and their results; thus, it is more objective and provides a way to measure the transferability of an EE and its results.Reference Husereau, Drummond and Petrou39,Reference Drummond, Sculpher, Claxton, Stoddart and Torrance41,Reference Nerich, Saing and Gamper42 However, as with any rating scale, a major limitation of the Drummond checklist is the likelihood of bias, even when the interobserver variability between reviewers is good.Reference Gonzalez-Perez43,Reference Lapointe-Shaw, Tran and Coyte44 Thus, the quality assessment of each selected CUA was performed by 2 independent reviewers (S.D. and V.N.). When there was disagreement, a consensus was reached using this checklist based on 10 questions; the checklist provided a framework for assessing methodological quality. For each question, there were 4 possible responses: yes, no, not clear, and not appropriate. One point was assigned for each “yes” response. The lowest and highest possible scores were thus 0 and 10, respectively. A score ≥7 was considered high quality.Reference Drummond, Sculpher, Claxton, Stoddart and Torrance41

Results

Article selection

The search in both PubMed and Cochrane identified 46 articles, but 1 was a duplicate. In addition, 36 were excluded after screening and analyzing titles and abstracts for exclusion criteria (Fig. 1). In total, 9 articles were analyzed and eligible for the systematic review (Appendix B online).Reference Lapointe-Shaw, Tran and Coyte44–Reference Jiang, Leung, Ip and You52

Fig. 1.

CONSORT flow diagram of literature review. (A) not only FMT. (B) FMT but did not report economic evaluation. (C) Systematic review, editorial, comment, letter to the editor, practice point and poster. Note. EEs, economic evaluations; FMT, fecal microbiota transplantation.

Synthesis of basic elements of economic evaluations

The characteristics of the 9 EEs are summarized in Table 1. All EEs were published in a clinical journal after 2013. Only 1 article evaluated initial CDI (iCDI), but 7 evaluated rCDI. Only 1 article assessed FMT EE in IBD (both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease) and 8 EEs were full EEs. At least 2 interventions were assessed by all authors. Authors usually conducted their analyses from the perspective of the healthcare system (n = 6). The main continent of origin was North America (n = 5), and the time horizon ranged from 1 episode (n = 1) to 1 year (n = 7).

Table 1.

Characteristics of the 9 Economic Evaluations Included in the Systematic Review

A synthesis of the basic elements of the 9 EEs is summarized in Table 2. Cost was derived from local or national database(s), the literature, or assumptions. Effectiveness was essentially derived from the literature. A model had been developed in 7 EEs. A discounting of costs and effectiveness was carried out in 25% of the cases. A complete sensitivity analysis had been conducted in 3 EEs.

Table 2.

Synthesis of Basic Elements of the 9 Economic Evaluations Included in the Systematic Review

Synthesis of results of economic evaluation

In the treatment of iCDI, FMTc, FMTen and FMTng were dominant versus vancomycin (V) but were dominated versus metronidazole (M) (Table 3).Reference Varier, Biltaji and Smith51 In the treatment of rCDI, FMTc, FMTen, FMTdi and FMTng were dominant versus vancomycin, metronidazole, and fidaxomicin in 6 EEsReference Lapointe-Shaw, Tran and Coyte44,Reference Baro, Galperine and Denies46–Reference Konijeti, Sauk, Shrime, Gupta and Ananthakrishnan49,Reference Jiang, Leung, Ip and You52 and were cost-effective at a threshold of ≤$50,000/QALY for Merlo et alReference Merlo, Graves, Brain and Connelly48 and Baro et al.Reference Baro, Galperine and Denies46 In the treatment of IBD, FMT was cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $20,158. Among different modes of administration (ie, FMTc, FMTen, FMTdi, and FMTng), FMTc was dominant.Reference Lapointe-Shaw, Tran and Coyte44,Reference Baro, Galperine and Denies46

TABLE 3.

Synthesis of Characteristics and Results of the 9 Economic Evaluations Included in the Systematic Review

Quality assessment of the economic evaluations

The median Drummond score of the 9 selected EEs was 7 (range, 6–10; first quartile, 6; third quartile, 9). The result of the quality assessment is provided in Fig. 2 and Appendix C (online). Of these 9 EEs, 6 had a Drummond score ≥ 7. Each was a full EE.

Fig. 2.

Percentage of ‘‘Yes’’ for each question of Drummond 10-point checklist for assessing economic evaluations.

Discussion

In this systematic review, we aimed to assess the economic impact of FMT as a new therapy. A trustworthy and valid measurement tool, AMSTAR, was used first to search for and select articles and then to extract data to optimize the quality of this systematic review.Reference Shea, Grimshaw and Wells38 In addition, 9 FMT-related EEs were identified and were deemed cost-effective for rCDI but not for iCDI. A single EE found FMT to be cost-effective for IBD. According to the only EE about IBD, the treatment was cost-effective, but more EEs are necessary to confirm this finding. To date, American and European guidelines only recommend FMT for multiple rCDI.Reference Surawicz, Brandt and Binion6,Reference van Beurden, de Groot, van Nood, Nieuwdorp, Keller and Goorhuis8,Reference Cammarota, Ianiro and Tilg11 An EE showed that the strategy of American guidelines recommending the use of FMT in multiple rCDI was a cost-effective one, thus validating its usefulness.Reference Rajasingham, Enns, Khoruts and Vaughn53 Although FMT seems to be a cost-effective and promising therapy for rCDI and other diseases like IBD, it will be necessary to provide decision makers of healthcare policies with additional EEs to adequately inform the adoption of appropriate guidelines.

The 9 selected FMT-related EEs are full and 8 of them are CUAs. In infectious diseases, a CUA should be preferred to a CEA, especially for the EE of FMT, because of its special impact on the quality of life. To improve the quality of future EEs, it is important to provide a thorough evaluation, which has not been done thus far.Reference Debast, Bauer and Kuijper9 Thus, using disease-related health-state utility values is necessary to precisely measure the length of life weighted by a valuation of the HRQOL. To date, no CDI- or IBD-related health-state utility values are available for FMT. Therefore, the estimation of quality of life and cost-utility may be biased.

Methods used by authors and topics addressed by EEs varied among the 9 EEs. In fact, the lines of treatment could be different: initial, greater than or equal to first recurrence, greater than or equal to second recurrence, or greater than or equal to third recurrence for CDI. Dosages and comparative reference treatments (eg, vancomycin, fidaxomicin, and metronidazole) were also disparate among the EEs.Reference Lapointe-Shaw, Tran and Coyte44,Reference Varier, Biltaji and Smith47,Reference Konijeti, Sauk, Shrime, Gupta and Ananthakrishnan49 The various routes of FMT administration were compared: FMTc, FMTen, FMTdi, and FMTng. Analyzed population, perspective, time horizon, source of costs, and source of effectiveness were also different among the 9 EEs. In addition, 8 EEs were based on a model such as the Markov model.

Overall, FMT interventions generate many costs. All of the expenses must be considered to estimate the exact cost of this therapy: donor selection, preparation of fecal material with antibiotics, fecal delivery, and both short-term and long-term monitoring of patients for efficacy outcomes and adverse events.Reference Ding, Li and Li20,Reference Sokol, Galperine and Kapel54 There are differences among countries, especially regarding donor selection. Moreover, FMT has some risks such as the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms. The authors of various studies did not calculate the overall cost of FMT in the same way, which influenced the results of their EEs. For example, Merlo et alReference Merlo, Graves, Brain and Connelly48 considered that the overall cost included blood and stool screening, human, material and technical time, pretreatment, obtaining, storing, preparing and administering the fecal infusion, whereas Varier et alReference Varier, Biltaji and Smith47 considered that it included only screening donors and recipients, and the cost of antibiotics and adverse events.

In the treatment of rCDI, FMT was cost-effective at a threshold of ≤$50,000/QALY for Merlo et alReference Merlo, Graves, Brain and Connelly48 and Baro et al.Reference Baro, Galperine and Denies46 However, FMT was also cost-effective because it was dominant in 4 EEs compared with vancomycin and was dominant in 2 EEs compared with fidaxomicin.Reference Lapointe-Shaw, Tran and Coyte44,Reference Baro, Galperine and Denies46–Reference Konijeti, Sauk, Shrime, Gupta and Ananthakrishnan49,Reference Jiang, Leung, Ip and You52 In the treatment of iCDI, FMT was dominated by metronidazole but was dominant versus vancomycin.Reference Varier, Biltaji and Smith51 Nevertheless, metronidazole is no longer recommended as a first-line therapy in this indication. Only 1 EE regarding IBD included and demonstrated its efficiency at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $20,158. The use of drugs was significantly reduced after FMT in this study.Reference Lapointe-Shaw, Tran and Coyte44

All CUAs related to rCDI and IBD in this systematic review concluded that FMT was cost-effective in comparison with other reference treatments at a threshold of ≤$50,000/QALY.Reference Lapointe-Shaw, Tran and Coyte44–Reference Jiang, Leung, Ip and You52 Another review that included only 4 studies about FMT in rCDI also concluded that FMT was cost-effective.Reference Le, Nghiem, Mullen and Deshpande55 FMT was considered cost-effective if it was less expensive and more effective than other treatments (FMT was dominant).Reference Lapointe-Shaw, Tran and Coyte44,Reference Varier, Biltaji and Smith47,Reference Merlo, Graves, Brain and Connelly48,Reference Jiang, Leung, Ip and You52 Otherwise, FMT was more expensive but more effective compared with other treatments.Reference Baro, Galperine and Denies46,Reference Merlo, Graves, Brain and Connelly48 Moreover, in these 4 studies, different routes of fecal delivery were reported, and FMTc achieved higher resolution rates. Indeed, FMTen, FMTdi, and FMTng had a QALY lower than FMTc. FMTc was dominant compared with other modes of administration.Reference Lapointe-Shaw, Tran and Coyte44,Reference Baro, Galperine and Denies46

Our analysis has several limitations other than those previously identified. First, it included only EEs written in English. Secondly, unpublished EEs (grey literature) and EEs of other electronic sources were not included, which may also have introduced some bias. Thirdly, we may have overestimated or underestimated the methodological quality of these EEs. Indeed, assessing methodological quality was often difficult and could have involved some subjectivity on the part of the reviewers.

In conclusion, after examining 9 EEs, FMT seems to be a promising and cost-effective treatment for rCDI but not for iCDI. American and European guidelines recommend the use of FMT for the treatment of rCDI, but additional EEs are needed to accurately identify its place within the therapeutic armamentarium of this disease. In addition, more EE studies on other diseases like IBD are necessary to assess FMT efficiency for new indications. Despite the limited number of EEs in the present study, our review suggests that FMT may be a cost-saving intervention in managing rCDI. It also provides decision makers of healthcare policies with additional information about the cost-effectiveness of FMT.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2019.371

Acknowledgments

None.

Financial support

No financial support was provided relevant to this article.

Conflicts of interest

All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

References

Ramai, D, Zakhia, K, Ofosu, A, Ofori, E, Reddy, M. Fecal microbiota transplantation: donor relation, fresh or frozen, delivery methods, cost-effectiveness. Ann Gastroenterol 2019;32:30–38.Google ScholarPubMed
Reigadas Ramírez, E, Bouza, ES. Economic burden of Clostridium difficile infection in European countries. Adv Exp Med Biol 2018;1050:1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiegand, PN, Nathwani, D, Wilcox, MH, Stephens, J, Shelbaya, A, Haider, S. Clinical and economic burden of Clostridium difficile infection in Europe: a systematic review of healthcare-facility–acquired infection. J Hosp Infect 2012;81:1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathias, F, Curti, C, Montana, M, Bornet, C, Vanelle, P. Management of adult Clostridium difficile digestive contaminations: a literature review. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2019;38:209–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, SH, Gerding, DN, Johnson, S, et al.Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection in adults: 2010 update by the society for healthcare epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the infectious diseases society of America (IDSA). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:431–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surawicz, CM, Brandt, LJ, Binion, DG, et al.Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of Clostridium difficile infections. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:478–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hocquart, M, Lagier, J-C, Cassir, N, et al.Early fecal microbiota transplantation improves survival in severe Clostridium difficile infections. Clin Infect Dis 2018;66:645–650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Beurden, YH, de Groot, PF, van Nood, E, Nieuwdorp, M, Keller, JJ, Goorhuis, A. Complications, effectiveness, and long term follow-up of fecal microbiota transfer by nasoduodenal tube for treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2017;5:868–879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Debast, SB, Bauer, MP, Kuijper, EJ, European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: update of the treatment guidance document for Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Microbiol Infect 2014;20 suppl 2:1–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, LC, Gerding, DN, Johnson, S, et al.Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection in adults and children: 2017 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). Clin Infect Dis 2018;66:e1–e48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cammarota, G, Ianiro, G, Tilg, H, et al.European consensus conference on faecal microbiota transplantation in clinical practice. Gut 2017;66:569–580.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suskind, DL, Brittnacher, MJ, Wahbeh, G, et al.Fecal microbial transplant effect on clinical outcomes and fecal microbiome in active Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2015;21:556–563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cao, Y, Zhang, B, Wu, Y, Wang, Q, Wang, J, Shen, F. The value of fecal microbiota transplantation in the treatment of ulcerative colitis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2018;2018:5480961.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kang, Y, Cai, Y. Gut microbiota and obesity: implications for fecal microbiota transplantation therapy. Horm Athens Greece 2017;16:223–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kakihana, K, Fujioka, Y, Suda, W, et al.Fecal microbiota transplantation for patients with steroid-resistant acute graft-versus-host disease of the gut. Blood 2016;128:2083–2088.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cui, B, Feng, Q, Wang, H, et al.Fecal microbiota transplantation through mid-gut for refractory Crohn’s disease: safety, feasibility, and efficacy trial results. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015;30:51–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
He, Z, Li, P, Zhu, J, et al.Multiple fresh fecal microbiota transplants induces and maintains clinical remission in Crohn’s disease complicated with inflammatory mass. Sci Rep 2017;7.Google ScholarPubMed
Loftus, EV, Sandborn, WJ. Epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2002;31:1–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, AP, Cabanilla, LA, Wu, EQ, Mulani, PM, Chao, J. The costs of Crohn’s disease in the United States and other Western countries: a systematic review. Curr Med Res Opin 2008;24:319–328.Google ScholarPubMed
Ding, X, Li, Q, Li, P, et al.Long-term safety and efficacy of fecal microbiota transplant in active ulcerative colitis. Drug Saf 2019;42:869–880.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sood, A, Mahajan, R, Singh, A, et al.Role of faecal microbiota transplantation for maintenance of remission in patients with ulcerative colitis: a pilot study. J Crohns Colitis 2019;13:1311–1317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costello, SP, Hughes, PA, Waters, O, et al.Effect of fecal microbiota transplantation on 8-week remission in patients with ulcerative colitis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2019;321:156–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moutinho, BD, Baima, JP, Rigo, FF, et al.Fecal microbiota transplantation in refractory ulcerative colitis—a case report. J Int Med Res 2019;47:1072–1079.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gupta, S, Allen-Vercoe, E, Petrof, EO. Fecal microbiota transplantation: in perspective. Ther Adv Gastroenterol 2016;9:229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Nood, E, Vrieze, A, Nieuwdorp, M, et al.Duodenal infusion of donor feces for recurrent Clostridium difficile. N Engl J Med 2013;368:407–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Youngster, I, Mahabamunuge, J, Systrom, HK, et al.Oral, frozen fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) capsules for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. BMC Med 2016;14:134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staley, C, Hamilton, MJ, Vaughn, BP, et al.Successful resolution of recurrent clostridium difficile infection using freeze-dried, encapsulated fecal microbiota; pragmatic cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol 2017;112:940–947.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheminet, G, Kapel, N, Bleibtreu, A, et al.Faecal microbiota transplantation with frozen capsules for relapsing Clostridium difficile infections: the first experience from 15 consecutive patients in France. J Hosp Infect 2018;100:148–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kao, D, Roach, B, Silva, M, et al.Effect of oral capsule- vs colonoscopy-delivered fecal microbiota transplantation on recurrent Clostridium difficile infection: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017;318:1985–1993.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enforcement policy regarding investigational new drug requirements for use of fecal microbiota for transplantation to treat Clostridium difficile infection not responsive to standard therapies. US Food and Drug Administration website. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/enforcement-policy-regarding-investigational-new-drug-requirements-use-fecal-microbiota-0. Published 2019. Accessed July 1, 2019.Google Scholar
Guidance document: Fecal microbiota therapy used in the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection not responsive to conventional therapies. Health Canada website. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/biologics-radiopharmaceuticals-genetic-therapies/applications-submissions/guidance-documents/regulation-fecal-microbiota-therapy-treatment-difficile-infections.html. Published 2015. Accessed July 1, 2019.Google Scholar
Megerlin, F, Fouassier, E. Fecal microbiota transplantation in France: what applicable law? Ann Pharm Fr 2014;72:363–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenberg, D, Earle, C, Fang, C-H, Eldar-Lissai, A, Neumann, PJ. When is cancer care cost-effective? A systematic overview of cost-utility analyses in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:82–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederix, GWJ, Severens, JL, Hövels, AM, Raaijmakers, JAM, Schellens, JHM. The cloudy crystal ball of cost-effectiveness studies. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2013;16:1100–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane website. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/Updated March 2011. Accessed July 1, 2019.Google Scholar
Choices in methods for economic evaluation. Public Health Assessment Haute Autorité de Santé. Department of Economics and Public Health Assessment website. https://www.has-sante.fr/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-10/choices_in_methods_for_economic_evaluation.pdf. Published 2012. Accessed December 27, 2019.Google Scholar
Whitehead, SJ, Ali, S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull 2010;96:5–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shea, BJ, Grimshaw, JM, Wells, GA, et al.Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Method 2007;7:10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Husereau, D, Drummond, M, Petrou, S, et al.Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)—explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2013;16:231–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Federal Reserve Bank. G.5 Release—Foreign Exchange Rates, November 01, 2016. Federal Reserve Bank website. https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g5/20161101/. Published 2016. Accessed July 1, 2019.Google Scholar
Drummond, MF, Sculpher, MJ, Claxton, K, Stoddart, GL, Torrance, GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. London: Oxford University Press; 2015.Google Scholar
Nerich, V, Saing, S, Gamper, EM, et al.Cost-utility analyses of drug therapies in breast cancer: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2016;159:407–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonzalez-Perez, JG. Developing a scoring system to quality assess economic evaluations. Eur J Health Econ 2002;3:131–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lapointe-Shaw, L, Tran, KL, Coyte, PC, et al.Cost-effectiveness analysis of six strategies to treat recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. PloS One 2016;11:e0149521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, T, Xiang, J, Cui, B, et al.Cost-effectiveness analysis of fecal microbiota transplantation for inflammatory bowel disease. Oncotarget 2017;8:88894–88903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baro, E, Galperine, T, Denies, F, et al.Cost-effectiveness analysis of five competing strategies for the management of multiple recurrent community-onset Clostridium difficile infection in France. PloS One 2017;12:e0170258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Varier, RU, Biltaji, E, Smith, KJ, et al.Cost-effectiveness analysis of fecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;36:438–444.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merlo, G, Graves, N, Brain, D, Connelly, LB. Economic evaluation of fecal microbiota transplantation for the treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection in Australia. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;31:1927–1932.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Konijeti, GG, Sauk, J, Shrime, MG, Gupta, M, Ananthakrishnan, AN. Cost-effectiveness of competing strategies for management of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection: a decision analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2014;58:1507–1514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waye, A, Atkins, K, Kao, D. Cost averted with timely fecal microbiota transplantation in the management of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection in Alberta, Canada. J Clin Gastroenterol 2016;50:747–753.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Varier, RU, Biltaji, E, Smith, KJ, et al.Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment strategies for initial Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Microbiol Infect 2014;20:1343–1351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiang, M, Leung, N-H, Ip, M, You, JHS. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ribotype-guided fecal microbiota transplantation in Chinese patients with severe Clostridium difficile infection. PloS One 2018;13:e0201539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rajasingham, R, Enns, EA, Khoruts, A, Vaughn, BP. Cost-effectiveness of treatment regimens for Clostridioides difficile infection—an evaluation of the 2018 Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines. Clin Infect Dis 2019. pii: ciz318. doi:10.1093/cid/ciz318.Google Scholar
Sokol, H, Galperine, T, Kapel, N, et al.Faecal microbiota transplantation in recurrent Clostridium difficile infection: recommendations from the French Group of Faecal Microbiota Transplantation. Dig Liver Dis Liver 2016;48:242–247.Google Scholar
Le, P, Nghiem, VT, Mullen, PD, Deshpande, A. Cost-effectiveness of competing treatment strategies for Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:412–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1.CONSORT flow diagram of literature review. (A) not only FMT. (B) FMT but did not report economic evaluation. (C) Systematic review, editorial, comment, letter to the editor, practice point and poster. Note. EEs, economic evaluations; FMT, fecal microbiota transplantation.

Figure 1

Table 1.Characteristics of the 9 Economic Evaluations Included in the Systematic Review

Figure 2

Table 2.Synthesis of Basic Elements of the 9 Economic Evaluations Included in the Systematic Review

Figure 3

TABLE 3.Synthesis of Characteristics and Results of the 9 Economic Evaluations Included in the Systematic Review

Figure 4

Fig. 2.Percentage of ‘‘Yes’’ for each question of Drummond 10-point checklist for assessing economic evaluations.

Supplementary material: File

Stalder et al. supplementary material

Stalder et al. supplementary material 1

Download Stalder et al. supplementary material(File)
File 15.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Stalder et al. supplementary material

Stalder et al. supplementary material 2

Download Stalder et al. supplementary material(File)
File 17.6 KB