RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (rCDI) is becoming increasingly common. Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is effective for rCDI, but the costs of an FMT and hospital cost savings related to FMT are unknown. The aim of this study was to calculate the cost of an FMT and the total hospital costs before and after FMT. METHODS: This was an observational single-centre study, carried out in a public teaching hospital. We included all patients referred for rCDI from January 2014 through December 2015 and documented costs related to donor screening, laboratory processing, and clinical FMT application. We calculated patient-related hospital costs 1 year before FMT (pre-FMT) and 1 year after FMT (post-FMT). Sensitivity analyses were applied to assess the robustness of the results. RESULTS: We included 50 consecutive adult patients who had a verified diagnosis of rCDI and were referred for FMT. The average cost of an outpatient FMT procedure if donor faeces were applied by colonoscopy was 3,326 per patient and 2,864 if donor faeces were applied using a nasojejunal tube. The total annual pre-FMT hospital costs per patient were 56,415 (95% confidence interval (CI) 41,133-71,697), and these costs dropped by 42% to 32,816 (22,618-42,014) post-FMT (p = 0.004). The main cost driver was hospital admissions. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated cost reductions in all scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: In a public hospital with an implemented FMT service, the average cost of FMT applied by either colonoscopy or nasojejunal tube was 3,095. Total hospital costs dropped by 42% the first year after FMT. The reduction was mainly caused by reductions in the number of hospital admissions and in length of stay.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is currently being established as a second-line treatment for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. FMT is further being considered for other infectious and inflammatory conditions. Safe and reproducible methods for donor screening, laboratory processing and clinical application of FMT are warranted. METHODS: Here, we describe the development of a complete clinical application framework for FMT. The framework has been developed to comply with the European Tissue Act, thus considering donor faeces for FMT comparable to a human tissue and not a drug. RESULTS: Recruitment and screening of potential faeces donors took place in the public blood donor setting and consisted of questionnaires, blood sampling and faecal sample analysis. Once approved, and following their written informed consent, eligible donors were invited for voluntary faecal donation. Laboratory processing protocols describe the initial handling, cryopreservation and thawing for clinical application. The clinical FMT procedures took place in a gastroenterological setting using a nasojejunal tube or colonoscopy, and follow-ups were performed at 1, 8 and 26 weeks after FMT. Complete traceability of essential equipment, faecal samples and donor-recipient matching data will be maintained and secured for 30 years. CONCLUSION: A clinical FMT service should be consolidated by a complete documentation system that complies with the European Tissue Act. In this paper, we provide a description of such a framework.
