Dolly Han1,2, Nicolas Iragorri1,2, Fiona Clement1,2, Diane Lorenzetti1,2, Eldon Spackman3,4. 1. Department of Community Health Sciences and O'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Teaching, Research and Wellness Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, Canada. 2. Health Technology Assessment Unit, Community Health Sciences and O'Brien Institute of Public Health, University of Calgary, Teaching, Research and Wellness Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada. 3. Department of Community Health Sciences and O'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Teaching, Research and Wellness Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, Canada. eldon.spackman@ucalgary.ca. 4. Health Technology Assessment Unit, Community Health Sciences and O'Brien Institute of Public Health, University of Calgary, Teaching, Research and Wellness Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada. eldon.spackman@ucalgary.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic constipation (CC) has a significant impact on patients' quality of life and imposes an economic burden on individuals and the healthcare system. Treatment options include dietary changes, lifestyle modifications, fibre supplements, stool softeners, and laxatives. OBJECTIVE: We undertook this systematic review to comprehensively evaluate the cost effectiveness of treatments for CC. METHODS: We searched ten common databases to identify economic evaluations published to 13 June 2017. Abstract and full-text review were completed in duplicate. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria. Data extracted included costs and outcomes of treatments for CC and cost-effectiveness methods. A narrative synthesis was completed. RESULTS: From the 4338 unique citations identified, 79 proceeded to full-text review, with 10 studies forming the final dataset. Eight different definitions of CC were used to define the study populations. Study designs used were decision-tree models (4), Markov model (1), and retrospective (1) and prospective (4) studies. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were reported in five studies; other outcomes included, discontinuation of laxative treatment and frequency of bowel movements. The majority of studies stated that their results were from a payer perspective; however, some of these studies only considered treatment costs, a subset of costs included in the payer perspective. Lifestyle advice, dietary treatments and abdominal massage were each compared with current care with laxatives, while polyethylene glycol (PEG) and senna-fibre combination were each compared with lactulose. Two studies compared newer treatments in patients who had not responded to laxatives: prucalopride was compared with continuing laxatives, and linaclotide was compared with lubiprostone. All of the interventions were reported by the study authors to be cost effective, with the exception of abdominal massage. CONCLUSIONS: A consistent definition of CC is needed and the QALY should be used to capture the diverse symptoms of CC. Further analysis is needed comparing all available treatments for patients who have not responded to laxatives. Overall, results from economic evaluations appear to align with stepwise practice guidelines.
BACKGROUND:Chronic constipation (CC) has a significant impact on patients' quality of life and imposes an economic burden on individuals and the healthcare system. Treatment options include dietary changes, lifestyle modifications, fibre supplements, stool softeners, and laxatives. OBJECTIVE: We undertook this systematic review to comprehensively evaluate the cost effectiveness of treatments for CC. METHODS: We searched ten common databases to identify economic evaluations published to 13 June 2017. Abstract and full-text review were completed in duplicate. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria. Data extracted included costs and outcomes of treatments for CC and cost-effectiveness methods. A narrative synthesis was completed. RESULTS: From the 4338 unique citations identified, 79 proceeded to full-text review, with 10 studies forming the final dataset. Eight different definitions of CC were used to define the study populations. Study designs used were decision-tree models (4), Markov model (1), and retrospective (1) and prospective (4) studies. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were reported in five studies; other outcomes included, discontinuation of laxative treatment and frequency of bowel movements. The majority of studies stated that their results were from a payer perspective; however, some of these studies only considered treatment costs, a subset of costs included in the payer perspective. Lifestyle advice, dietary treatments and abdominal massage were each compared with current care with laxatives, while polyethylene glycol (PEG) and senna-fibre combination were each compared with lactulose. Two studies compared newer treatments in patients who had not responded to laxatives: prucalopride was compared with continuing laxatives, and linaclotide was compared with lubiprostone. All of the interventions were reported by the study authors to be cost effective, with the exception of abdominal massage. CONCLUSIONS: A consistent definition of CC is needed and the QALY should be used to capture the diverse symptoms of CC. Further analysis is needed comparing all available treatments for patients who have not responded to laxatives. Overall, results from economic evaluations appear to align with stepwise practice guidelines.
Authors: Silvia Evers; Mariëlle Goossens; Henrica de Vet; Maurits van Tulder; André Ament Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2005 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Greger Lindberg; Saeed S Hamid; Peter Malfertheiner; Ole Ostergaard Thomsen; Luis Bustos Fernandez; James Garisch; Alan Thomson; Khean-Lee Goh; Rakesh Tandon; Suliman Fedail; Benjamin C Y Wong; Aamir Ghafoor Khan; Justus H Krabshuis; Anton LeMair Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 3.062
Authors: Mi Li; Lijuan Zhao; Li Ma; Wen Zhang; Hua Huang; Jun Wei; Jun Sun; Fenying Lu; Lijiang Ji Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2021-11-25 Impact factor: 2.629