Are Guideline Recommendations on Supportive Nutrition and Exercise Therapy for Cancer Patients Implemented in Clinical Routine? A National Survey with Real-Life Data.

Malnutrition and cancer cachexia are highly prevalent comorbidities of cancer, limiting patients' quality of life and being relevant to prognosis. International and national clinical guidelines recommend supportive nutrition and exercise therapy for cancer patients. However, there is little current epidemiological evidence on the implementation of these guideline recommendations in clinical routine. To close this data gap, a national survey in Germany using an online questionnaire was conducted. There were 261 of a total of 5074 contacted hospitals and medical offices who participated in the survey (5.1% response rate). The data indicated that nutrition and exercise therapy for cancer patients is so far inadequately implemented, with 59% of the respondents reporting nutrition therapy as an integral part of oncological treatment, 66.7% having a nutrition specialist/team, and 65.1% routinely conducting a screening for nutritional status. Only half of the participants stated that there are defined goals in nutrition therapy. The majority of respondents (85.8%) generally recommend exercise therapy, but only a few of them provide specific offers at their own institution (19.6%) or at cooperation partners (31.7%). In order to implement the recommended combined nutrition and exercise therapy as part of regular care, there is a need for nationwide availability of multidisciplinary nutrition teams and targeted offers of individualized exercise therapy. Health policy support would be important to create the structural, financial, and staff conditions for appropriate guideline implementation in order to achieve the optimal treatment of cancer patients.

[The Economic Evaluation of the GLICEMIA 2.0 Study as an Example of a Complex Intervention]. / Die gesundheitsökonomische Evaluation der GLICEMIA 2.0-Studie als Beispiel für eine komplexe Intervention.

BACKGROUND: A piggyback approach was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the prevention program delivered at the point of care pharmacy in the GLICEMIA 2.0 study that sought to guide participants in the intervention group to improved glycemic control in type 2 diabetes with sustained incentivization of lifestyle changes, therapeutic compliance, and adherence. The control group received passive medication management and monitoring. METHODS: Primary endpoint of the GLICEMIA 2.0 study was the stabilization of HbA1c values. For health economic evaluation, incremental differences in output changes were examined, defined as the difference in the distribution of the HbA1c values between both groups over time. Direct program costs and anticipated indirect costs of service utilization were used as cost parameters. A net monetary benefit approach was used to validate cost-effectiveness thresholds via the formation of ICER values. RESULTS: The intervention group had significantly higher reductions in HbA1c-values. Risk stratification of initial HbA1c showed (short-term) cost effectiveness for initially higher HbA1c values. Due to the limited study period, no long-term differences in medical resource utilization could be assessed. CONCLUSION: The GLICEMIA program indicates considerable effectiveness potentials, especially for high-risk patients. The study design seems to have assisted the intervention group's adherence in contrast to the control group. Detailed impacts within the complex intervention could not be validated due to restrictions of the study design as a complex intervention. Overall, statements about effect sustainability and further utilization rates progressions are limited due to a lack of follow-up.