M Elia1, C Normand2, A Laviano3, K Norman4. 1. Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, National Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre (Nutrition), Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, England, UK. Electronic address: elia@soton.ac.uk. 2. Centre for Health Policy and Management, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. 3. Department of Clinical Medicine, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy. 4. Research Group on Geriatrics, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Despite the clinical benefits of using standard (non-disease specific) oral nutritional supplements (ONS) in the community and care homes, there is uncertainty about their economic consequences. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken according to recommended procedures to assess whether ONS can produce cost savings and cost-effective outcomes. RESULTS: 19 publications with and without a hospital component were identified: 9 full text papers, 9 abstracts, and 1 report with retrospective analyses of 6 randomised controlled trials. From these publications a total of 31 cost and 4 cost-effectiveness analyses were identified. Most were retrospective analyses based on clinical data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In 9 studies/economic models involving ONS use for <3 months, there were consistent cost savings compared to the control group (median cost saving 9.2%; P < 0.01). When used for ≥3 months, the median cost saving was 5% (P > 0.05; 5 studies). In RCTs, ONS accounted for less than 5% of the total costs and the investment in the community produced a cost saving in hospital. Meta-analysis indicated that ONS reduced hospitalisation significantly (16.5%; P < 0.001; 9 comparisons) and mortality non-significantly (Relative risk 0.86 (95% CI, 0.61, 1.22); 8 comparisons). Many clinically relevant outcomes favouring ONS were reported: improved quality of life, reduced infections, reduced minor post-operative complications, reduced falls, and functional limitations. Of the cost-effectiveness analyses involving quality adjusted life years or functional limitations, most favoured the ONS group. The care home studies (4 cost analyses; 2 cost-effectiveness analyses) had differing aims, designs and conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the reviewed studies, mostly based on retrospective cost analyses, indicate that ONS use in the community produce an overall cost advantage or near neutral balance, often in association with clinically relevant outcomes, suggesting cost effectiveness. There is a need for prospective studies designed to examine primary economic outcomes.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Despite the clinical benefits of using standard (non-disease specific) oral nutritional supplements (ONS) in the community and care homes, there is uncertainty about their economic consequences. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken according to recommended procedures to assess whether ONS can produce cost savings and cost-effective outcomes. RESULTS: 19 publications with and without a hospital component were identified: 9 full text papers, 9 abstracts, and 1 report with retrospective analyses of 6 randomised controlled trials. From these publications a total of 31 cost and 4 cost-effectiveness analyses were identified. Most were retrospective analyses based on clinical data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In 9 studies/economic models involving ONS use for <3 months, there were consistent cost savings compared to the control group (median cost saving 9.2%; P < 0.01). When used for ≥3 months, the median cost saving was 5% (P > 0.05; 5 studies). In RCTs, ONS accounted for less than 5% of the total costs and the investment in the community produced a cost saving in hospital. Meta-analysis indicated that ONS reduced hospitalisation significantly (16.5%; P < 0.001; 9 comparisons) and mortality non-significantly (Relative risk 0.86 (95% CI, 0.61, 1.22); 8 comparisons). Many clinically relevant outcomes favouring ONS were reported: improved quality of life, reduced infections, reduced minor post-operative complications, reduced falls, and functional limitations. Of the cost-effectiveness analyses involving quality adjusted life years or functional limitations, most favoured the ONS group. The care home studies (4 cost analyses; 2 cost-effectiveness analyses) had differing aims, designs and conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the reviewed studies, mostly based on retrospective cost analyses, indicate that ONS use in the community produce an overall cost advantage or near neutral balance, often in association with clinically relevant outcomes, suggesting cost effectiveness. There is a need for prospective studies designed to examine primary economic outcomes.
Authors: Suela Sulo; David Lanctin; Josh Feldstein; Bjoern Schwander; Jamie Partridge; Wendy Landow; York F Zöllner Journal: Am Health Drug Benefits Date: 2020-06
Authors: Kurt Hong; Suela Sulo; William Wang; Susan Kim; Laura Huettner; Rose Taroyan; Kirk W Kerr; Carolyn Kaloostian Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2021 Jan-Dec
Authors: José Pablo Suárez-Llanos; Néstor Benítez-Brito; Laura Vallejo-Torres; Irina Delgado-Brito; Adriá Rosat-Rodrigo; Carolina Hernández-Carballo; Yolanda Ramallo-Fariña; Francisca Pereyra-García-Castro; Juan Carlos-Romero; Nieves Felipe-Pérez; Jennifer García-Niebla; Eduardo Mauricio Calderón-Ledezma; Teresa de Jesús González-Melián; Ignacio Llorente-Gómez de Segura; Manuel Ángel Barrera-Gómez Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Jia Yee Mah; Suet Wan Choy; Matthew A Roberts; Anne Marie Desai; Melissa Corken; Stella M Gwini; Lawrence P McMahon Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-05-11