IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v15y2017i1d10.1007_s40258-016-0269-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Cost-Effectiveness of Oral Nutrition Supplementation for Malnourished Older Hospital Patients

Author

Listed:
  • Yue Zhong

    (Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center)

  • Joshua T. Cohen

    (Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center)

  • Scott Goates

    (Abbott Nutrition)

  • Menghua Luo

    (Abbott Nutrition)

  • Jeffrey Nelson

    (Abbott Nutrition)

  • Peter J. Neumann

    (Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center)

Abstract

Background Malnutrition, which is associated with increased medical complications in older hospitalized patients, can be attenuated by providing nutritional supplements. Objective This study evaluates the cost effectiveness of a specialized oral nutritional supplement (ONS) in malnourished older hospitalized patients. Methods We conducted an economic evaluation alongside a multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial (NOURISH Study). The target population was malnourished older hospitalized patients in the USA. We used 90-day (base case) and lifetime (sensitivity analysis) time horizons. The study compared a nutrient-dense ONS, containing high protein and β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate to placebo. Outcomes included health-care costs, measured as the product of resource use and per unit cost; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (90-day time horizon); life-years (LYs) saved (lifetime time horizon); and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). All costs were inflated to 2015 US dollars. Results In the base-case analysis, 90-day treatment group costs averaged US$22,506 per person, compared to US$22,133 for the control group. Treatment group patients gained 0.011 more QALYs than control group subjects, reflecting the treatment group’s significantly greater probability of survival through 90 days’ follow-up, as reported by the clinical trial. Hence, the 90-day follow-up period ICER was US$33,818/QALY. Assuming a lifetime time horizon, estimated treatment group life expectancy exceeded control group life expectancy by 0.71 years. Hence, the lifetime ICER was US$524/LY. The follow-up period for the trial was relatively short. Some of the patients were lost to follow-up, thus reducing collection of health-care utilization data during the clinical trial. Conclusion Our findings suggest that the investigative ONS cost-effectively extends the lives of malnourished hospitalized patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Yue Zhong & Joshua T. Cohen & Scott Goates & Menghua Luo & Jeffrey Nelson & Peter J. Neumann, 2017. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Oral Nutrition Supplementation for Malnourished Older Hospital Patients," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 75-83, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0269-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0269-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-016-0269-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-016-0269-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0269-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.