EFFICIENCY OF A NEW HOME STOOL SAMPLE COLLECTION KIT FOR FECAL CALPROTECTIN TESTING: A COST-CONSEQUENCE MODEL IN THE ITALIAN SETTING
Author(s)
Orietta Zaniolo, PharmD1, Lorenzo Pradelli, MD2, Sahar Rosenblum, MBA3, Matteo Pinciroli, MBA3.
1Expert Analyst, Adres HE&OR, Turin, Italy, 2Adres HE&OR, Torino, Italy, 3DiaSorin Italia S.p.A. con socio unico, Saluggia (VC), Italy.
1Expert Analyst, Adres HE&OR, Turin, Italy, 2Adres HE&OR, Torino, Italy, 3DiaSorin Italia S.p.A. con socio unico, Saluggia (VC), Italy.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the expected efficiency of a home stool collection kit versus the standard collection kit for stool sample collection and processing prior to fecal calprotectin testing, estimating the cost per valid test performed in the Italian health care setting.
METHODS: A decision-analytic cost model was developed to compare the two collection pathways from medical prescription to sample loading into the analyzer. A micro-costing approach estimated costs of materials and healthcare personnel time by phase. Costs were applied progressively across the pathway according to the proportion of samples reaching each phase. The denominator of the analysis was the number of valid samples analyzed, defined as the product of the sample return rate and the validity rate. Literature indicates that home collection could improve both parameters by reducing barriers to sample return, including collection-related inconvenience and social embarrassment, and by improving sample preservation through an integrated buffered, refrigerated, and discreet transport system. Laboratory-related costs were applied only to returned samples, while the initial medical prescription cost was applied to all prescribed tests.
RESULTS: Although home collection had a significantly higher upfront material cost than standard collection, reduced staff time and lower sample handling requirements partially offset this difference. In particular, savings in reception, aliquoting, and manual extraction procedures were able to offset 70% of the acquisition cost of the new home stool collection kit. When accounting for the expected increase in returned and valid samples, the overall cost per valid test was 6€ lower for home collection (39€ per valid test) than for the standard collection kit (45€ per valid test).
CONCLUSIONS: Under the model assumptions, home collection is expected to represent a more efficient strategy for fecal calprotectin sample collection and extraction. These findings support subsequent real-world validation of the assumed improvements in return and validity rates.
METHODS: A decision-analytic cost model was developed to compare the two collection pathways from medical prescription to sample loading into the analyzer. A micro-costing approach estimated costs of materials and healthcare personnel time by phase. Costs were applied progressively across the pathway according to the proportion of samples reaching each phase. The denominator of the analysis was the number of valid samples analyzed, defined as the product of the sample return rate and the validity rate. Literature indicates that home collection could improve both parameters by reducing barriers to sample return, including collection-related inconvenience and social embarrassment, and by improving sample preservation through an integrated buffered, refrigerated, and discreet transport system. Laboratory-related costs were applied only to returned samples, while the initial medical prescription cost was applied to all prescribed tests.
RESULTS: Although home collection had a significantly higher upfront material cost than standard collection, reduced staff time and lower sample handling requirements partially offset this difference. In particular, savings in reception, aliquoting, and manual extraction procedures were able to offset 70% of the acquisition cost of the new home stool collection kit. When accounting for the expected increase in returned and valid samples, the overall cost per valid test was 6€ lower for home collection (39€ per valid test) than for the standard collection kit (45€ per valid test).
CONCLUSIONS: Under the model assumptions, home collection is expected to represent a more efficient strategy for fecal calprotectin sample collection and extraction. These findings support subsequent real-world validation of the assumed improvements in return and validity rates.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
EE182
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Medical Technologies, Organizational Practices
Disease
Gastrointestinal Disorders, Systemic Disorders/Conditions (Anesthesia, Auto-Immune Disorders (n.e.c.), Hematological Disorders (non-oncologic), Pain)