Scholarlink

Background <p>Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for recurrent <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> infection (CDI) is used in less than 10% of the patients in Europe who meet the indication. Encapsulated FMT allows increased use for CDI because capsules can be safely shipped to local healthcare facilities and administered orally to patients without use of e.g. colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to calculate and compare the costs of alternative ways of delivering encapsulated FMT to patients with CDI in Denmark, including outpatient treatment at a specialised FMT centre, outpatient treatment at local hospitals including remote delivery to the Faroe Islands, and home-based care.</p> Methods <p>Applying a healthcare perspective, we used an activity-based costing approach, combining data from a pragmatic clinical randomised trial with the best available literature and expert input. Only relevant costs were included. The main outcome was the average cost of delivering outpatient, encapsulated FMT treatment at an FMT centre, at a local hospital, or in the patient’s home, only including additional costs related to delivery. An 8-week time horizon was applied for the analysis. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were applied to evaluate decision uncertainty and the robustness of the results.</p> Results <p>In a pragmatic randomised trial including 217 patients with CDI, 135 patients received FMT. Analysing relevant costs in a base case analysis, local outpatient treatment (€145) was cost-saving compared with both treatment at the FMT centre (€209) and home-based treatment (€353). These differences remained robust across sensitivity analyses, including those accounting for patients’ time costs. In the Faroe Islands case, shipment to remote locations added an average cost of €54 per FMT to the cost for the local outpatient treatment.</p> Conclusion <p>Capsule-based FMT treatment has made it clinically and economically feasible to administer FMT in contextual settings outside of specialised hospitals. Our findings highlight the importance of local hospital-based treatment for increasing patient access to FMT, the ability to ship FMT to remote locations lacking a FMT centre, and the option of home-based treatment for a selected group of patients who may not tolerate transport to hospital.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Increasing patient access to faecal microbiota transplantation with remote delivery: a cost analysis of outpatient versus home-based treatment

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月24日

查看全文
  • Renée Hangaard Olesen,
  • Emma Bendix Larsen,
  • Tone Rubak,
  • Simon Mark Dahl Baunwall,
  • Sara Ellegaard Paaske,
  • Merete Gregersen,
  • Christian Erikstrup,
  • Katrin Olsen,
  • Jens Frederik Dahlerup,
  • Thea Kirkegaard Kjaer,
  • Camilla Birch Krogh,
  • Lars Holger Ehlers,
  • Christian Lodberg Hvas

摘要

Background

Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is used in less than 10% of the patients in Europe who meet the indication. Encapsulated FMT allows increased use for CDI because capsules can be safely shipped to local healthcare facilities and administered orally to patients without use of e.g. colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to calculate and compare the costs of alternative ways of delivering encapsulated FMT to patients with CDI in Denmark, including outpatient treatment at a specialised FMT centre, outpatient treatment at local hospitals including remote delivery to the Faroe Islands, and home-based care.

Methods

Applying a healthcare perspective, we used an activity-based costing approach, combining data from a pragmatic clinical randomised trial with the best available literature and expert input. Only relevant costs were included. The main outcome was the average cost of delivering outpatient, encapsulated FMT treatment at an FMT centre, at a local hospital, or in the patient’s home, only including additional costs related to delivery. An 8-week time horizon was applied for the analysis. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were applied to evaluate decision uncertainty and the robustness of the results.

Results

In a pragmatic randomised trial including 217 patients with CDI, 135 patients received FMT. Analysing relevant costs in a base case analysis, local outpatient treatment (€145) was cost-saving compared with both treatment at the FMT centre (€209) and home-based treatment (€353). These differences remained robust across sensitivity analyses, including those accounting for patients’ time costs. In the Faroe Islands case, shipment to remote locations added an average cost of €54 per FMT to the cost for the local outpatient treatment.

Conclusion

Capsule-based FMT treatment has made it clinically and economically feasible to administer FMT in contextual settings outside of specialised hospitals. Our findings highlight the importance of local hospital-based treatment for increasing patient access to FMT, the ability to ship FMT to remote locations lacking a FMT centre, and the option of home-based treatment for a selected group of patients who may not tolerate transport to hospital.