Dataset Information

Cost savings associated with nutritional support in medical inpatients: an economic model based on data from a systematic review of randomised trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aims

Nutritional support improves clinical outcomes during hospitalisation as well as after discharge. Recently, a systematic review of 27 randomised, controlled trials showed that nutritional support was associated with lower rates of hospital readmissions and improved survival. In the present economic modelling study, we sought to determine whether in-hospital nutritional support would also return economic benefits.

Methods

The current economic model applied cost estimates to the outcome results from our recent systematic review of hospitalised patients. In the underlying meta-analysis, a total of 27 trials (n=6803 patients) were included. To calculate the economic impact of nutritional support, a Markov model was developed using transitions between relevant health states. Costs were estimated accounting for length of stay in a general hospital ward, hospital-acquired infections, readmissions and nutritional support. Six-month mortality was also considered. The estimated daily per-patient cost for in-hospital nutrition was US$6.23.

Results

Overall costs of care within the model timeframe of 6 months averaged US$63 227 per patient in the intervention group versus US$66 045 in the control group, which corresponds to per patient cost savings of US$2818. These cost savings were mainly due to reduced infection rate and shorter lengths of stay. We also calculated the costs to prevent a hospital-acquired infection and a non-elective readmission, that is, US$820 and US$733, respectively. The incremental cost per life-day gained was -US$1149 with 2.53 additional days. The sensitivity analyses for cost per quality-adjusted life day provided support for the original findings.

Conclusions

For medical inpatients who are malnourished or at nutritional risk, our findings showed that in-hospital nutritional support is a cost-effective way to reduce risk for readmissions, lower the frequency of hospital-associated infections, and improve survival rates.

SUBMITTER: Schuetz P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8273448 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Glucose management is challenging in patients who require nutritional support in hospital. We aimed to assess whether fully closed-loop insulin delivery would improve glycaemic control compared with conventional subcutaneous insulin therapy in inpatients receiving enteral or parenteral nutrition or both. METHODS:We did a two-centre (UK and Switzerland), open-label, randomised controlled trial in adult inpatients receiving enteral or parenteral nutrition (or both) who required subcutaneous insulin therapy. Patients recruited from non-critical care surgical and medical wards were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated minimisation schedule (stratified by type of nutritional support [parenteral nutrition on or off] and pre-study total daily insulin dose [<50 or ≥50 units]) to receive fully closed-loop insulin delivery with faster-acting insulin aspart (closed-loop group) or conventional subcutaneous insulin therapy (control group) given in accordance with local clinical practice. Continuous glucose monitoring in the control group was masked to patients, ward staff, and investigators. Patients were followed up for a maximum of 15 days or until hospital discharge. The primary endpoint was the proportion of time that sensor glucose concentration was in target range (5·6-10·0 mmol/L), assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01774565. FINDINGS:Between Feb 8, 2018, and Sept 21, 2018, 90 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 43 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the closed-loop group (n=21) or the control group (n=22). The proportion of time that sensor glucose was in the target range was 68·4% [SD 15·5] in the closed-loop group and 36·4% [26·6] in the control group (difference 32·0 percentage points [95% CI 18·5-45·5; p<0·0001]). One serious adverse event occurred in each group (one cardiac arrest in the control group and one episode of acute respiratory failure in the closed-loop group), both of which were unrelated to study interventions. There were no adverse events related to study interventions in either group. No episodes of severe hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia with ketonaemia occurred in either study group. INTERPRETATION:Closed-loop insulin delivery is an effective treatment option to improve glycaemic control in patients receiving nutritional support in hospital. FUNDING:Diabetes UK, Swiss National Science Foundation, National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome Trust, and European Foundation for the Study of Diabetes.

Project description:ImportanceMalnutrition affects a considerable proportion of the medical inpatient population. There is uncertainty regarding whether use of nutritional support during hospitalization in these patients positively alters their clinical outcomes.ObjectiveTo assess the association of nutritional support with clinical outcomes in medical inpatients who are malnourished or at nutritional risk.Data sourcesFor this updated systematic review and meta-analysis, a search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and Embase was conducted from January 1, 2015, to April 30, 2019; the included studies were published between 1982 and 2019.Study selectionA prespecified Cochrane protocol was followed to identify trials comparing oral and enteral nutritional support interventions with usual care and the association of these treatments with clinical outcomes in non-critically ill medical inpatients who were malnourished.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias; data were pooled using a random-effects model.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was mortality. The secondary outcomes included nonelective hospital readmissions, length of hospital stay, infections, functional outcome, daily caloric and protein intake, and weight change.ResultsA total of 27 trials (n = 6803 patients) were included, of which 5 (n = 3067 patients) were published between 2015 and 2019. Patients receiving nutritional support compared with patients in the control group had significantly lower rates of mortality (230 of 2758 [8.3%] vs 307 of 2787 [11.0%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56-0.97). A sensitivity analysis suggested a more pronounced reduction in the risk of mortality in recent trials (2015 or later) (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28-0.79) compared with that in older studies (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.72-1.22), in patients with established malnutrition (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.34-0.80) compared with that in patients at nutritional risk (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.62-1.18), and in trials with high protocol adherence (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54-0.84) compared with that in trials with low protocol adherence (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.44-1.76). Nutritional support was also associated with a reduction in nonelective hospital readmissions (14.7% vs 18.0%; risk ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.96), higher energy intake (mean difference, 365 kcal; 95% CI, 272-458 kcal) and protein intake (mean difference, 17.7 g; 95% CI, 12.1-23.3 g), and weight increase (0.73 kg; 95% CI, 0.32-1.13 kg). No significant differences were observed in rates of infections (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.64-1.16), functional outcome (mean difference, 0.32; 95% CI, -0.51 to 1.15), and length of hospital stay (mean difference, -0.24; 95% CI, -0.58 to 0.09).Conclusions and relevanceThis study's findings suggest that despite heterogeneity and varying methodological quality among trials, nutritional support was associated with improved survival and nonelective hospital readmission rates among medical inpatients who were malnourished and should therefore be considered when treating this population.

Project description:In the United States (US), the lifetime incidence of incarceration is 6.6%, exceeding that of any other nation. Compared to the general US population, incarcerated individuals are disproportionally affected by chronic health conditions, mental illness, and substance use disorders. Barriers to accessing medical care are common in correctional facilities. We sought to characterize the local incarcerated patient population and explore barriers to medical care in these patients. We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study by reviewing the medical records of incarcerated patients presenting to the adult emergency department (ED) of a single academic, tertiary care facility with medical or psychiatric (med/psych) and trauma-related emergencies between January 2012 and December 2014. Data on demographics, medical complexity, trauma intentionality, and barriers to medical care were analyzed using descriptive statistics, unpaired student's t-test or one-way analysis of variance for continuous variables, and chi-square analysis or Fisher's exact test as appropriate. Trauma patients were younger with fewer medical comorbidities and were less likely to be admitted to the hospital than med/psych patients. 47.8% of injuries resulted from violence or were self-inflicted. Most trauma-related complaints were managed by the emergency medicine physician in the ED. While barriers to medical care were not correlated with hospital admission, 5.4% of med/psych and 2.9% of trauma patients reported barriers as a contributing factor to the ED encounter. Med/psych patients commonly reported a lack of access to medications, while trauma patients reported a delay in medical care. Trauma-related presentations were less medically complex than med/psych-related complaints. Medical management of most injuries required no hospital resources outside of the ED, indicating a potential role for outpatient management of trauma-related complaints. Additional opportunities for health care improvement and cost savings include the implementation of programs that target violence, prevent injuries, and promote the continuity of medical care while incarcerated.

Project description:To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing (NMP).Systematic review. Two reviewers independently completed searches, eligibility assessment and assessment of risk of bias.Pre-defined search terms/combinations were utilised to search electronic databases. In addition, hand searches of reference lists, key journals and grey literature were employed alongside consultation with authors/experts.Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating clinical or cost-effectiveness of NMP. Measurements reported on one or more outcome(s) of: pain, function, disability, health, social impact, patient-safety, costs-analysis, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), patient satisfaction, clinician perception of clinical and functional outcomes.Three RCTs from two countries were included (n = 932 participants) across primary and tertiary care settings. One RCT was assessed as low risk of bias, one as high risk of bias and one as unclear risk of bias. All RCTs evaluated clinical effectiveness with one also evaluating cost-effectiveness. Clinical effectiveness was evaluated using a range of safety and patient-reported outcome measures. Participants demonstrated significant improvement in outcomes when receiving NMP compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in all RCTs. An associated cost analysis showed NMP to be more expensive than TAU (regression coefficient p = 0.0000), however experimental groups generated increased QALYs compared to TAU.Limited evidence with overall unclear risk of bias exists evaluating clinical and cost-effectiveness of NMP across all professions and clinical settings. GRADE assessment revealed moderate quality evidence. Evidence suggests that NMP is safe and can provide beneficial clinical outcomes. Benefits to the health economy remain unclear, with the cost-effectiveness of NMP assessed by a single pilot RCT of low risk of bias. Adequately powered low risk of bias RCTs evaluating clinical and cost effectiveness are required to evaluate NMP across clinical specialities, professions and settings.PROSPERO (CRD42015017212).