{"title":"Fecal Microbiota Therapy for Clostridium difficile Infection: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with recurrent C. difficile infection, fecal microbiota therapy improves outcomes that are important to patients and provides good value for money.</p>","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"16 17","pages":"1-69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4973962/pdf/ohtas-16-1.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
背景:粪便微生物群疗法越来越多地用于治疗艰难梭菌感染患者。这项卫生技术评估主要评估了粪便微生物群治疗与常规治疗(抗生素治疗)相比的有效性和成本效益。方法:我们使用Ovid MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane系统评价数据库、疗效评价摘要数据库、CRD卫生技术评价数据库、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库和NHS经济评价数据库进行文献检索。对于经济评论,我们对这些搜索结果应用了经济过滤器。我们还在各机构的网站上搜索了其他卫生技术评估。我们进行了荟萃分析来分析有效性。根据建议分级、评估、发展和评价(GRADE)工作组标准检查每个结果的证据体质量。使用阶梯式结构方法,我们确定了总体质量为高、中等、低或非常低。我们使用调查来检验医生对患者生活经验的感知,并使用改进的扎根理论方法来分析调查所得的信息。结果:1173篇文献中有16篇符合临床疗效评价标准。两项随机对照试验的荟萃分析发现,与万古霉素治疗相比,粪便微生物群治疗可显著改善复发性艰难梭菌感染相关的腹泻(相对危险度3.24,95%可信区间[CI] 1.85-5.68) (GRADE:中度)。虽然与抗生素治疗相比,粪便微生物群治疗与死亡率的显著降低无关(相对危险度0.69,95% CI 0.14-3.39) (GRADE:低),但与不良事件的显著增加相关(例如,短期腹泻,相对危险度30.76,95% CI 4.46-212.44;腹部痉挛,相对风险14.81,95% CI 2.07-105.97)(分级:低)。对于物有所值部分,151项经济评价中有两项符合纳入标准。一篇报道称,与万古霉素相比,粪便微生物群治疗占主导地位(更有效、更便宜);另一项报告称,与万古霉素相比,粪便微生物群治疗每个质量调整生命年的增量成本-效果比为17016美元。第二项研究的这一比例表明,每一次复发性难辨梭菌感染的解决都会带来额外的费用。在安大略省,如果采用粪便微生物群疗法治疗复发性艰难梭菌感染,从卫生和长期护理部作为付款人的角度考虑,第一年采用后估计可节省150万美元,三年后可节省290万美元。第二次经济评估与我们估计的节省之间的矛盾可能是由于安大略省的粪便微生物群治疗和住院费用较低,而美国模式中使用的治疗费用较低。医生报告艰难梭菌感染显著降低了患者的生活质量。医生认为粪便微生物群疗法可以改善患者的生活质量,因为患者可以恢复日常活动。医生报告说,他们的病人对接受粪便微生物群治疗所需的程序很满意。结论:在复发性艰难梭菌感染患者中,粪便微生物群治疗改善了对患者很重要的结果,并提供了物有所值的治疗。