Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Transanal Irrigation in Patients with Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction

Anton Emmanuel, Gayathri Kumar, Peter Christensen, Stuart Mealing, Zenia M Størling, Frederikke Andersen, Steven Kirshblum, Anton Emmanuel, Gayathri Kumar, Peter Christensen, Stuart Mealing, Zenia M Størling, Frederikke Andersen, Steven Kirshblum

Abstract

Background: People suffering from neurogenic bowel dysfunction (NBD) and an ineffective bowel regimen often suffer from fecal incontinence (FI) and related symptoms, which have a huge impact on their quality of life. In these situations, transanal irrigation (TAI) has been shown to reduce these symptoms and improve quality of life.

Aim: To investigate the long-term cost-effectiveness of initiating TAI in patients with NBD who have failed standard bowel care (SBC).

Methods: A deterministic Markov decision model was developed to project the lifetime health economic outcomes, including quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), episodes of FI, urinary tract infections (UTIs), and stoma surgery when initiating TAI relative to continuing SBC. A data set consisting of 227 patients with NBD due to spinal cord injury (SCI), multiple sclerosis, spina bifida and cauda equina syndrome was used in the analysis. In the model a 30-year old individual with SCI was used as a base-case. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was applied to evaluate the robustness of the model.

Results: The model predicts that a 30-year old SCI patient with a life expectancy of 37 years initiating TAI will experience a 36% reduction in FI episodes, a 29% reduction in UTIs, a 35% reduction in likelihood of stoma surgery and a 0.4 improvement in QALYs, compared with patients continuing SBC. A lifetime cost-saving of £21,768 per patient was estimated for TAI versus continuing SBC alone.

Conclusion: TAI is a cost-saving treatment strategy reducing risk of stoma surgery, UTIs, episodes of FI and improving QALYs for NBD patients who have failed SBC.

Conflict of interest statement

FA and ZS are employees of Coloplast A/S who have funded the study. AE, PC and SK are occasionally used as KOLs for advisory boards at Coloplast A/S. The authors confirm that this does not alter the authors' adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Fig 1. Data and Markov model overview.
Fig 1. Data and Markov model overview.
The boxes represent the health states that a neurogenic patient can transition between after having failed standard bowel care (SBC) before and after 2007. SBC alone. After having failed SBC >6 months, a patient can either a) Resume SBC, b) Progress to SNS/SARS/ACE or d) Progress to stoma (absorbing state). TAI in combination with SBC. After having failed SBC >6 months, a patient can either a) Initiate Peristeen TAI, b) Resume SBC, c) Progress to SNS/SARS/ACE or d) Progress to stoma. The model assumes that patients do not transition directly from SBC/TAI to stoma. Transition probabilities have been obtained for each 6-month model cycle using GoalSeek in Excel.
Fig 2. Tornado diagram.
Fig 2. Tornado diagram.
Fig 3. Cost-effectiveness plane.
Fig 3. Cost-effectiveness plane.
WTP: Willingness to pay: linear threshold corresponds to the WTP value used by NICE in making reimbursement decisions (£30.000 per QALY gained). Each quadrant corresponds to one incremental cost option (cost saving, not cost saving) and one incremental benefit option (more/less benefit than comparator therapy).

References

    1. Krogh K, Nielsen J, Djurhuus JC, Mosdal C, Sabroe S, Laurberg S (1997) Colorectal function in patients with spinal cord lesions. Dis Colon Rectum 40: 1233–1239.
    1. Verhoef M, Lurvink M, Barf HA, Post MW, van Asbeck FW, Gooskens RH, et al. (2005) High prevalence of incontinence among young adults with spina bifida: description, prediction and problem perception. Spinal Cord 43: 331–340.
    1. Hinds JP, Eidelman BH, Wald A (1990) Prevalence of bowel dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. A population survey. Gastroenterology 98: 1538–1542.
    1. DeLisa JA, Kirshblum S (1997) A review: frustrations and needs in clinical care of spinal cord injury patients. J Spinal Cord Med 20: 384–390.
    1. Emmanuel A (2010) Managing neurogenic bowel dysfunction. Clin Rehabil 24: 483–488. 10.1177/0269215509353253
    1. Correa GI, Rotter KP (2000) Clinical evaluation and management of neurogenic bowel after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 38: 301–308.
    1. Harari D, Sarkarati M, Gurwitz JH, McGlinchey-Berroth G, Minaker KL (1997) Constipation-related symptoms and bowel program concerning individuals with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 35: 394–401.
    1. Lynch AC, Antony A, Dobbs BR, Frizelle FA (2001) Bowel dysfunction following spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 39: 193–203.
    1. Coggrave M (2012) Guidelines for Management of Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction in individuals with Central Neurological Conditions. Available: .
    1. Emmanuel AV, Krogh K, Bazzocchi G, Leroi AM, Bremers A, Leder D, et al. (2013) Consensus review of best practice of transanal irrigation in adults. Spinal Cord 51: 732–738. 10.1038/sc.2013.86
    1. Christensen P, Bazzocchi G, Coggrave M, Abel R, Hultling C, Krogh K, et al. (2006) A randomized, controlled trial of transanal irrigation versus conservative bowel management in spinal cord-injured patients. Gastroenterology 131: 738–747.
    1. Christensen P, Andreasen J, Ehlers L (2009) Cost-effectiveness of transanal irrigation versus conservative bowel management for spinal cord injury patients. Spinal Cord 47: 138–143. 10.1038/sc.2008.98
    1. Del Popolo G, Mosiello G, Pilati C, Lamartina M, Battaglino F, Buffa P, et al. (2008) Treatment of neurogenic bowel dysfunction using transanal irrigation: a multicenter Italian study. Spinal Cord 46: 517–522. 10.1038/sj.sc.3102167
    1. Christensen P, Krogh K, Buntzen S, Payandeh F, Laurberg S (2009) Long-term outcome and safety of transanal irrigation for constipation and fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 52: 286–292. 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181979341
    1. Faaborg PM, Christensen P, Kvitsau B, Buntzen S, Laurberg S, Krogh K (2009) Long-term outcome and safety of transanal colonic irrigation for neurogenic bowel dysfunction. Spinal Cord 47: 545–549. 10.1038/sc.2008.159
    1. Frankel HL, Coll JR, Charlifue SW, Whiteneck GG, Gardner BP, Jamous MA, et al. (1998) Long-term survival in spinal cord injury: a fifty year investigation. Spinal Cord 36: 266–274.
    1. Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M (2006) Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation Oxford University Press.
    1. Dolan P (1997) Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 35: 1095–1108.
    1. National Health Service England and Wales (2015) NHS Electronic Drug Tariff.
    1. British National Formulary 69 (2015) BNF 69. .
    1. PSSRU (2014) Personal Social Services Research Unit. Unit costs of health and social care act 2014. Available: .
    1. NHS 2014 (2014) National Health Service. Reference Cost Collection: National Schedule of Reference Costs—Year 2013–14—NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts. Available:
    1. NICE (2013) (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Available: .
    1. Emmanuel A, Bazzocchi G, Kirshblum S (2015) Facts and Myths of Bowel Management. ISCoS. Montreal (Canada)
    1. Krogh K, Christensen P, Sabroe S, Laurberg S (2006) Neurogenic bowel dysfunction score. Spinal Cord 44: 625–631.
    1. Liu CW, Huang CC, Yang YH, Chen SC, Weng MC, Huang MH (2009) Relationship between neurogenic bowel dysfunction and health-related quality of life in persons with spinal cord injury. J Rehabil Med 41: 35–40. 10.2340/16501977-0277
    1. Furlan JC, Urbach DR, Fehlings MG (2007) Optimal treatment for severe neurogenic bowel dysfunction after chronic spinal cord injury: a decision analysis. Br J Surg 94: 1139–1150.
    1. NICE (2012) (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) Infection: prevention and control of healthcare-associated infections in primary and community care. Available: .
    1. Watt M, Mealing S, Eaton J, Piazza N, Moat N, Brasseur P, et al. (2012) Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients ineligible for conventional aortic valve replacement. Heart 98: 370–376. 10.1136/heartjnl-2011-300444
    1. Dudding TC, Meng Lee E, Faiz O, Pares D, Vaizey CJ, McGuire A, et al. (2008) Economic evaluation of sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence. Br J Surg 95: 1155–1163. 10.1002/bjs.6237
    1. Dagenais S (2013) Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of sacral anterior root stimulation for rehabilitation of bladder dysfunction in spinal cord injured patients. Neurosurgery 73: E911–912. 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000203
    1. SCNs High Impact Action Steering Group 2010 (2010) High Impact Actions for Stoma Care. May 2010. Available: .
    1. Bermingham SL, Hodgkinson S, Wright S, Hayter E, Spinks J, Pellowe C (2013) Intermittent self catheterisation with hydrophilic, gel reservoir, and non-coated catheters: a systematic review and cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ 346: e8639 10.1136/bmj.e8639
    1. Meisner S, Lehur PA, Moran B, Martins L, Jemec GB (2012) Peristomal skin complications are common, expensive, and difficult to manage: a population based cost modeling study. PLoS One 7: e37813 10.1371/journal.pone.0037813

Source: PubMed

3
購読する