Healthcare Resource Utilization and Cost Comparisons of High-Protein Enteral Nutrition Formulas Used in Critically Ill Patients.

Background: High-protein enteral nutrition is advised for patients who are critically ill. Options include immunonutrition formulas of various compositions and standard high-protein formulas (StdHP). Additional research is needed on the health economic value of immunonutrition in a broad cohort of severely ill hospitalized patients. Objective: The study goal was to compare healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and cost between immunonutrition and StdHP using real-world evidence from a large US administrative database. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was designed using the PINC AI™ Healthcare Database from 2015 to 2019. IMPACT® Peptide 1.5 (IP) was compared with Pivot® 1.5 (PC), and StdHP formulas. Inclusion criteria comprised patients age 18+ with at least 1 day's stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and at least 3 out of 5 consecutive days of enteral nutrition. Pairwise comparisons of demographics, clinical characteristics, HCRU, and costs were conducted between groups. Multivariable regression was used to assess total hospital cost per day associated with enteral nutrition cohort. Results: A total of 5752 patients were identified across 27 hospitals. Overall, a median 7 days of enteral nutrition was received over a 16-day hospital and 10-day ICU stay. Median total and daily hospital costs were lower for IP vs PC ($71 196 vs $80 696, P<.001) and ($4208 vs $4373, P=.019), with each higher than StdHP. However, after controlling for covariates such as mortality risk, surgery, and discharge disposition, average total hospital cost per day associated with IP use was 24% lower than PC, and 12% lower than StdHP (P<.001). Readmissions within 30 days were less frequent for patients receiving IP compared with PC (P<.02) and StdHP (P<.001). Discussion: Choice of high-protein enteral nutrition for patients in the ICU has implications for HCRU and daily hospital costs. Considering these correlations is important when comparing formula ingredients and per unit costs. Among the enteral nutrition products studied, IP emerged as the most cost-saving option, with lower adjusted hospital cost per day than PC or StdHP. Conclusions: Using a select immunonutrition formula for critically ill patients may provide overall cost savings for the healthcare system.

Value of nutrition support therapy in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies: a narrative review and health economic analysis of impact on clinical outcomes in the United States.

Malnutrition, particularly under-nutrition, is highly prevalent among adult patients with a diagnosis of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer and negatively affects patient outcomes. Malnutrition is associated with clinical and surgical complications for patients undergoing therapy for GI cancers and the costs associated with those complications is a high burden for the US health system. Our objective was to identify high-quality evidence for nutrition support interventions associated with cost savings for patient care, followed by a complex economic value analysis to project cost savings for the US health system. A narrative literature search was conducted in which combined keywords in the areas of therapeutic nutrition (nutrition, malnutrition), a specific therapeutic area [GI cancer (esophageal, gastric, gallbladder, pancreatic, liver/hepatic, small and large intestine, colorectal)], and clinical outcomes and healthcare cost, to look for nutrition interventions that could significantly improve clinical outcomes. Medicare claims data were then analyzed using the findings of these identified studies and this modeling exercise supported identifying the cost and healthcare resource utilization implications of specific populations to determine the impact of nutrition support on reducing these costs as reflected in the summary of the evidence. Eight studies were found that provided clinical outcomes and health cost savings data, 2 of those had the strongest level of evidence and were used for Value Analysis calculations. Nutrition interventions such as oral diet modifications, enteral nutrition (EN) supplementation, and parenteral nutrition (PN) have been studied especially in the peri-operative setting. Specifically, peri-operative immunonutrition administration and utilization of enhanced recovery pathways after surgery have been associated with significant improvement in postoperative complications and decreased length of hospital stay (LOS). Utilizing economic modeling of Medicare claims data from GI cancer patients, potential annual cost savings of $242 million were projected by the widespread adoption of these interventions. Clinical outcomes can be improved with the use of nutrition interventions in patients with GI cancers. Healthcare costs can be reduced as a result of fewer in-hospital complications and shorter lengths of hospital stay. The application of nutrition intervention provides a positive clinical and economic value proposition to the healthcare system for patients with GI cancers.

Real-World Evidence of Treatment, Tolerance, Healthcare Utilization, and Costs Among Postacute Care Adult Patients Receiving Enteral Peptide-Based Diets in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Peptide -based (PB) enteral tube feeding (ETF) formulas have been shown to reduce gastrointestinal (GI) intolerance in patients receiving enteral nutrition. However, limited data exist in relation to their use in the postacute/home care setting. We sought to assess the real-world GI tolerance, healthcare utilization, and resource use costs of 100% whey-protein PB ETF in adults in a postacute care setting and describe their demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics. METHOD: Using medical claims data from the United States, we analyzed GI intolerance events occurring in adults receiving 100% whey-protein PB ETF (Peptamen® adult formulas) for one year before and after initiation of ETF. Resource use costs were subsequently estimated using a multivariate general linearized model and adjusted for age, gender, and Charlson Comorbidity Index score. RESULTS: The proportion of adults experiencing no GI intolerance events increased from 41% (418/1022) to 59% (601/1022) in the one-year period after initiation of 100% whey PB ETF (P < .001). The proportion of patients with at least one hospital inpatient visit also decreased from 100% (1022/1022) to 72% (737/1022) over the same period, and the mean number of inpatient visits per patient decreased from 15.6 to 13.0. Cost modeling revealed that outpatient visits accounted for 42% ($1174/$2820) of total estimated healthcare resource costs in the first 30 days after 100% whey PB ETF initiation, with only 9% ($255/$2820) due to emergency room visits. CONCLUSION: These 100% whey-protein PB ETF formulas are a valuable nutrition treatment option for patients with or at risk of malnutrition who show intolerance to standard ETF formulas and may reduce hospital inpatient visits and associated costs.

Value of Nutrition Support Therapy: Impact on Clinical and Economic Outcomes in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Healthcare leaders seek guidance on prudent investment in programs that improve patient outcomes and reduce costs, which includes the value of nutrition therapy. The purpose of this project was to conduct an evidence review and evaluate claims analyses to understand the financial and quality impact of nutrition support therapy on high-priority therapeutic conditions. METHODS: Task 1 included a review of existing literature from 2013 to 2018 to identify evidence that demonstrated the clinical and economic impact of nutrition intervention on patient outcomes across 13 therapeutic areas (TAs). In Task 2, analytic claims modeling was performed using the Medicare Parts A and B claims 5% sample dataset. Beneficiaries diagnosed in 5 selected TAs (sepsis, gastrointestinal [GI] cancer, hospital-acquired infections, surgical complications, and pancreatitis) were identified in the studies from Task 1, and their care costs were modeled based on nutrition intervention. RESULTS: Beginning with 1099 identified articles, 43 articles met the criteria, with a final 8 articles used for the Medicare claims modeling. As examples of the modeling demonstrated, the use of advanced enteral nutrition formula could save at least $52 million annually in a sepsis population. The total projected annual cost savings from the 5 TAs was $580 million. CONCLUSION: Overall, optimization of nutrition support therapy for specific patient populations is estimated to reduce Medicare spending by millions of dollars per year across key TAs. These findings demonstrate the evidence-based value proposition of timely nutrition support to improve clinical outcomes and yield substantial cost savings.

A health economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of OPTIFAST for the treatment of obesity in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Obesity is associated with high direct medical costs and indirect costs resulting from productivity loss. The high prevalence of obesity generates a justified need to identify cost-effective weight loss approaches from a payer's perspective. Within the variety of weight management techniques, OPTIFAST is a clinically recognized and scientifically proven total meal replacement Low Calorie Diet that provides meaningful results in terms of weight loss and reduction in comorbidities. The objective of this study is assess potential cost-savings of the OPTIFAST program in the US, as compared to "no intervention" and pharmacotherapy. METHODS: An event-driven decision analytic model was used to estimate payer's cost-savings from reimbursement of the 1-year OPTIFAST program over 3 years in the US. The analysis was performed for the broad population of obese persons (BMI >30 kg/m2) undergoing the OPTIFAST program vs liraglutide 3 mg, naltrexone/bupropion and vs "no intervention". The model included the risk of complications related to increased BMI. Data sources included published literature, clinical trials, official US price/tariff lists, and national population statistics. The primary perspective was that of a US payer; costs were provided in 2016 US dollars. RESULTS: OPTIFAST leads over a period of 3 years to cost-savings of USD 9,285 per class I and II obese patient (BMI 30-39.9 kg/m2) as compared to liraglutide and USD 685 as compared to naltrexone/bupropion. In the same time perspective, the OPTIFAST program leads to a reduction of cost of obesity complications of USD 1,951 as compared to "no intervention", with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD 6,475 per QALY. Scenario analyses also show substantial cost-savings in patients with class III obesity (BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m2) and patients with obesity (BMI = 30-39.9 kg/m2) and type 2 diabetes vs all three previous comparators and bariatric surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Reimbursing OPTIFAST leads to meaningful cost-savings for US payers as compared with "no intervention" and liraglutide and naltrexone/bupropion in obese patients. Similar results can be expected in matching healthcare settings of other countries. Moreover, OPTIFAST has additional clinical and economic advantages through very low complication and adverse events rates.