• J Med Econ · Mar 2019

    Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study

    An economic evaluation of perioperative enteral nutrition in patients undergoing colorectal surgery (SANICS II study).

    • Madhuri Pattamatta, EversSilvia M A ASMAAhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-1026-570Xa Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care , Maastricht University , Maastricht , The Netherlands.b Trimbos Institute of Mental Health and Addiction ,, SmeetsBoudewijn J JBJJc Department of Surgery , Catharina Hospital Eindhoven , Eindhoven , The Netherlands.d GROW School of Oncology and Developmental Biology , Maastricht University , Maastricht , The Netherlands., Emmeline G Peters, LuyerMisha D PMDPhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-9483-1520c Department of Surgery , Catharina Hospital Eindhoven , Eindhoven , The Netherlands., and Mickael Hiligsmann.
    • a Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care , Maastricht University , Maastricht , The Netherlands.
    • J Med Econ. 2019 Mar 1; 22 (3): 238-244.

    AimsThe objective of this (trial based) economic evaluation was to assess, from a societal perspective, the cost-effectiveness of perioperative enteral nutrition compared with standard care in patients undergoing colorectal surgery.Materials And MethodsAlongside the SANICS II randomized controlled trial, global quality-of-life, utilities (measured by EQ-5D-5L), healthcare costs, production losses, and patient and family costs were assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (i.e. cost per increased global quality-of-life score or quality-adjusted life year [QALY] gained) and cost effectiveness acceptability curves were visualized.ResultsIn total, 265 patients were included in the original trial (n = 132 in the perioperative enteral nutrition group and n = 133 in the standard care group). At 6 months, global quality-of-life (83 vs 83, p = .357) did not differ significantly between the groups. The mean total societal costs for the intervention and standard care groups were €14,673 and €11,974, respectively, but did not reach statistical significance (p = .109). The intervention resulted in an ICER of -€6,276 per point increase in the global quality of life score. The gain in QALY was marginal (0.003), with an additional cost of €2,941, and the ICUR (Incremental cost utility ratio) was estimated at €980,333.LimitationsThe cost elements for all the participating centers reflect the reference prices from the Netherlands. Patient-reported questionnaires may have resulted in recall bias. Sample size was limited by exclusion of patients who did not complete questionnaires for at least at two time points. A power analysis based on costs and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) was not performed. The economic impact could not be analyzed at 1 month post-operatively where the effects could potentially be higher.ConclusionsThis study suggests that perioperative nutrition is not beneficial for the patients in terms of quality-of-life and is not cost-effective.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…