Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness study of early versus late parenteral nutrition in critically ill children (PEPaNIC): preplanned secondary analysis of a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The multicentre randomised controlled PEPaNIC trial showed that withholding parenteral nutrition (PN) during the first week of critical illness in children was clinically superior to providing early PN. This study describes the cost-effectiveness of this new nutritional strategy. METHODS:Direct medical costs were calculated with use of a micro-costing approach. We compared the costs of late versus early initiation of PN (n?=?673 versus n?=?670 patients) in the Belgian and Dutch study populations from a hospital perspective, using Student's t test with bootstrapping. Main cost drivers were identified and the impact of new infections on the total costs was assessed. RESULTS:Mean direct medical costs for patients receiving late PN (€26.680, IQR €10.090-28.830 per patient) were 21% lower (-€7.180, p?=?0.007) than for patients receiving early PN (€33.860, IQR €11.080-34.720). Since late PN was more effective and less costly, this strategy was superior to early PN. The lower costs for PN only contributed 2.1% to the total cost reduction. The main cost driver was intensive care hospitalisation costs (-€4.120, p?=?0.003). The patients who acquired a new infection (14%) were responsible for 41% of the total costs. Sensitivity analyses confirmed consistency across both healthcare systems. CONCLUSIONS:Late initiation of PN decreased the direct medical costs for hospitalisation in critically ill children, beyond the expected lower costs for withholding PN. Avoiding new infections by late initiation of PN yielded a large cost reduction. Hence, late initiation of PN was superior to early initiation of PN largely via its effect on new infections. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01536275 . Registered on 16 February 2012.

SUBMITTER: van Puffelen E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5769527 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness study of early versus late parenteral nutrition in critically ill children (PEPaNIC): preplanned secondary analysis of a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

van Puffelen Esther E Polinder Suzanne S Vanhorebeek Ilse I Wouters Pieter Jozef PJ Bossche Niek N Peers Guido G Verstraete Sören S Joosten Koen Felix Maria KFM Van den Berghe Greet G Verbruggen Sascha Cornelis Antonius Theodorus SCAT Mesotten Dieter D

Critical care (London, England) 20180115 1

<h4>Background</h4>The multicentre randomised controlled PEPaNIC trial showed that withholding parenteral nutrition (PN) during the first week of critical illness in children was clinically superior to providing early PN. This study describes the cost-effectiveness of this new nutritional strategy.<h4>Methods</h4>Direct medical costs were calculated with use of a micro-costing approach. We compared the costs of late versus early initiation of PN (n = 673 versus n = 670 patients) in the Belgian a ...[more]

PMID: 29335014

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe state-of-the-art nutrition used for critically ill children is based essentially on expert opinion and extrapolations from adult studies or on studies in non-critically ill children. In critically ill adults, withholding parenteral nutrition (PN) during the first week in ICU improved outcome, as compared with early supplementation of insufficient enteral nutrition (EN) with PN. We hypothesized that withholding PN in children early during critical illness reduces the incidence of new infections and accelerates recovery.Methods/designThe Pediatric Early versus Late Parenteral Nutrition in Intensive Care Unit (PEPaNIC) study is an investigator-initiated, international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial (RCT) in three tertiary referral pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in three countries on two continents. This study compares early versus late initiation of PN when EN fails to reach preset caloric targets in critically ill children. In the early-PN (control, standard of care) group, PN comprising glucose, lipids and amino acids is administered within the first days to reach the caloric target. In the late-PN (intervention) group, PN completing EN is only initiated beyond PICU-day 7, when EN fails. For both study groups, an early EN protocol is applied and micronutrients are administered intravenously. The primary assessor-blinded outcome measures are the incidence of new infections during PICU-stay and the duration of intensive care dependency. The sample size (n = 1,440, 720 per arm) was determined in order to detect a 5% absolute reduction in PICU infections, with at least 80% 1-tailed power (70% 2-tailed) and an alpha error rate of 5%. Based on the actual incidence of new PICU infections in the control group, the required sample size was confirmed at the time of an a priori- planned interim-analysis focusing on the incidence of new infections in the control group only.DiscussionClinical evidence in favor of early administration of PN in critically ill children is currently lacking, despite potential benefit but also known side effects. This large international RCT will help physicians to gain more insight in the clinical effects of omitting PN during the first week of critical illness in children.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01536275 on 16 February 2012.

Project description:BackgroundParenteral nutrition (PN) is needed to avoid the development of malnutrition when enteral nutrition (EN) is not possible. Our main aim was to assess the current use, complications, and nutrition delivery associated with PN administration in adult critically ill patients, especially when used early and as the initial route. We also assessed the differences between patients who received only PN and those in whom EN was initiated after PN (PN-EN).MethodsA multicenter (n = 37) prospective observational study was performed. Patient clinical characteristics, outcomes, and nutrition-related variables were recorded. Statistical differences between subgroups were analyzed accordingly.ResultsFrom the entire population (n = 629), 186 (29.6%) patients received PN as initial nutrition therapy. Of these, 74 patients (11.7%) also received EN during their ICU stay (i.e., PN-EN subgroup). PN was administered early (<48 h) in the majority of patients (75.3%; n = 140) and the mean caloric (19.94 ± 6.72 Kcal/kg/day) and protein (1.01 ± 0.41 g/kg/day) delivery was similar to other contemporary studies. PN showed similar nutritional delivery when compared with the enteral route. No significant complications were associated with the use of PN. Thirty-two patients (43.3%) presented with EN-related complications in the PN-EN subgroup but received a higher mean protein delivery (0.95 ± 0.43 vs 1.17 ± 0.36 g/kg/day; p = 0.03) compared with PN alone. Once adjusted for confounding factors, patients who received PN alone had a lower mean protein intake (hazard ratio (HR): 0.29; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.18-0.47; p = 0.001), shorter ICU stay (HR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.91-0.99; p = 0.008), and fewer days on mechanical ventilation (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.81-0.89; p = 0.001) compared with the PN-EN subgroup.ConclusionThe parenteral route may be safe, even when administered early, and may provide adequate nutrition delivery. Additional EN, when possible, may optimize protein requirements, especially in more severe patients who received initial PN and are expected to have longer ICU stays. NCT Registry: 03634943.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In the critically ill, energy delivery from enteral nutrition (EN) is often less than the estimated energy requirement. Parenteral nutrition (PN) as a supplement to EN may increase energy delivery. We aimed to determine if an individually titrated supplemental PN strategy commenced 48-72 hours following ICU admission and continued for up to 7 days would increase energy delivery to critically ill adults compared to usual care EN delivery. METHODS:This study was a prospective, parallel group, phase II pilot trial conducted in six intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand. Mechanically ventilated adults with at least one organ failure and EN delivery below 80% of estimated energy requirement in the previous 24 hours received either a supplemental PN strategy (intervention group) or usual care EN delivery. EN in the usual care group could be supplemented with PN if EN remained insufficient after usual methods to optimise delivery were attempted. RESULTS:There were 100 patients included in the study and 99 analysed. Overall, 71% of the study population were male, with a mean (SD) age of 59 (17) years, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 18.2 (6.7) and body mass index of 29.6 (5.8) kg/m2. Significantly greater energy (mean (SD) 1712 (511) calories vs. 1130 (601) calories, p?<?0.0001) and proportion of estimated energy requirement (mean (SD) 83 (25) % vs. 53 (29) %, p?<?0.0001) from EN and/or PN was delivered to the intervention group compared to usual care. Delivery of protein and proportion of estimated protein requirements were also greater in the intervention group (mean (SD) 86 (25) g, 86 (23) %) compared to usual care (mean (SD) 53 (29) g, 51 (25) %, p?<?0.0001). Antibiotic use, ICU and hospital length of stay, mortality and functional outcomes were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:This individually titrated supplemental PN strategy applied over 7 days significantly increased energy delivery when compared to usual care delivery. Clinical and functional outcomes were similar between the two patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinical Trial registry details: NCT01847534 (First registered 22 April 2013, last updated 31 July 2016).

Project description:Background and aimsDespite enteral nutrition (EN) is the preferred route of nutrition in patients with critical illness, EN is not always able to provide optimal nutrient provision and parenteral nutrition (PN) is needed. This is strongly associated with gastrointestinal (GI) complications, a feature of gastrointestinal dysfunction and disease severity. The aim of the present study was to investigate factors associated with the need of PN after start of EN, together with the use and complications associated with EN.MethodsAdult patients admitted to 38 Spanish intensive care units (ICUs) between April and July 2018, who needed EN therapy were included in a prospective observational study. The characteristics of EN-treated patients and those who required PN after start EN were analyzed (i.e., clinical, laboratory and scores).ResultsOf a total of 443 patients, 43 (9.7%) received PN. One-third (29.3%) of patients presented GI complications, which were more frequent among those needing PN (26% vs. 60%, p = 0.001). No differences regarding mean energy and protein delivery were found between patients treated only with EN (n = 400) and those needing supplementary or total PN (n = 43). Abnormalities in lipid profile, blood proteins, and inflammatory markers, such as C-Reactive Protein, were shown in those patients needing PN. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) on ICU admission (Hazard ratio [HR]:1.161, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.053-1.281, p = 0.003) and modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill (mNUTRIC) score (HR:1.311, 95% CI:1.098-1.565, p = 0.003) were higher among those who needed PN. In the multivariate analysis, higher SOFA score (HR:1.221, 95% CI:1.057-1.410, p = 0.007) and higher triglyceride levels on ICU admission (HR:1.004, 95% CI:1.001-1.007, p = 0.003) were associated with an increased risk for the need of PN, whereas higher albumin levels on ICU admission (HR:0.424, 95% CI:0.210-0.687, p = 0.016) was associated with lower need of PN.ConclusionA higher SOFA and nutrition-related laboratory parameters on ICU admission may be associated with the need of PN after starting EN therapy. This may be related with a higher occurrence of GI complications, a feature of GI dysfunction.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03634943.

Project description:IntroductionThe EPaNIC randomized controlled multicentre trial showed that postponing initiation of parenteral nutrition (PN) in ICU-patients to beyond the first week (Late-PN) enhanced recovery, as compared with Early-PN. This was mediated by fewer infections, accelerated recovery from organ failure and reduced duration of hospitalization. Now, the trial's preplanned cost analysis (N = 4640) from the Belgian healthcare payers' perspective is reported.MethodsCost data were retrieved from individual patient invoices. Undiscounted total healthcare costs were calculated for the index hospital stay. A cost tree based on acquisition of new infections and on prolonged length-of-stay was constructed. Contribution of 8 cost categories to total hospitalization costs was analyzed. The origin of drug costs was clarified in detail through the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system. The potential impact of Early-PN on total hospitalization costs in other healthcare systems was explored in a sensitivity analysis.ResultsICU-patients developing new infection (24.4%) were responsible for 42.7% of total costs, while ICU-patients staying beyond one week (24.3%) accounted for 43.3% of total costs. Pharmacy-related costs represented 30% of total hospitalization costs and were increased by Early-PN (+608.00 EUR/patient, p = 0.01). Notably, costs for ATC-J (anti-infective agents) (+227.00 EUR/patient, p = 0.02) and ATC-B (comprising PN) (+220.00 EUR/patient, p = 0.006) drugs were increased by Early-PN. Sensitivity analysis revealed a mean total cost increase of 1,210.00 EUR/patient (p = 0.02) by Early-PN, when incorporating the full PN costs.ConclusionsThe increased costs by Early-PN were mainly pharmacy-related and explained by higher expenditures for PN and anti-infective agents. The use of Early-PN in critically ill patients can thus not be recommended for both clinical (no benefit) and cost-related reasons.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00512122.

Project description:Nutrition is one of the fundamentals of care provided to critically ill adults. The volume of enteral nutrition received, however, is often much less than prescribed due to multiple functional and process issues. To deliver the prescribed volume and correct the energy deficit associated with enteral nutrition alone, parenteral nutrition can be used in combination (termed "supplemental parenteral nutrition"), but benefits of this method have not been firmly established. A multi-centre, randomised, clinical trial is currently underway to determine if prescribed energy requirements can be provided to critically ill patients by using a supplemental parenteral nutrition strategy in the critically ill.This prospective, multi-centre, randomised, stratified, parallel-group, controlled, phase II trial aims to determine whether a supplemental parenteral nutrition strategy will reliably and safely increase energy intake when compared to usual care. The study will be conducted for 100 critically ill adults with at least one organ system failure and evidence of insufficient enteral intake from six intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand. Enrolled patients will be allocated to either a supplemental parenteral nutrition strategy for 7 days post randomisation or to usual care with enteral nutrition. The primary outcome will be the average energy amount delivered from nutrition therapy over the first 7 days of the study period. Secondary outcomes include protein delivery for 7 days post randomisation; total energy and protein delivery, antibiotic use and organ failure rates (up to 28 days); duration of ventilation, length of intensive care unit and hospital stay. At both intensive care unit and hospital discharge strength and health-related quality of life assessments will be undertaken. Study participants will be followed up for health-related quality of life, resource utilisation and survival at 90 and 180 days post randomisation (unless death occurs first).This trial aims to determine if provision of a supplemental parenteral nutrition strategy to critically ill adults will increase energy intake compared to usual care in Australia and New Zealand. Trial outcomes will guide development of a subsequent larger randomised controlled trial.NCT01847534 (First registered 5 February 2013, last updated 14 October 2015).

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness study of early versus late parenteral nutrition in critically ill children (PEPaNIC): preplanned secondary analysis of a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness study of early versus late parenteral nutrition in critically ill children (PEPaNIC): preplanned secondary analysis of a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets