Clinical economics review: nutritional support

A randomized controlled trial comparing a standard postoperative diet with low-volume high-calorie oral supplements following colorectal surgery

AIM

Postoperative oral nutritional supplementation is becoming a part of most patient care pathways. This study examined the effects of low-volume high-calorie prescribed supplemental nutrition on patient outcome following elective colorectal surgery.

METHOD

Patients undergoing elective colorectal resections were randomized to a prescribed nutritional supplementation group (SG) [standard diet + 6 × 60 ml/day of Pro-Cal (60 ml = 200 kcal + 4 g protein)] or conventional postoperative diet group (CG) (standard diet alone). Preoperative and daily postoperative hand-grip strengths were measured using a grip dynamometer after randomization. Daily food intake, return of bowel activity, nausea score for the first 3 days and postoperative length of hospital stay (LOS) were prospectively recorded. Micro-diet standardized software was used to analyse food diaries. Nonparametric tests were used to analyse the data.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients were analysed (SG 28, CG 27). There was no difference in median preoperative and postoperative handgrip strengths at discharge within each group (SG 31.7 vs 31.7 kPa, P = 0.932; CG 28 vs 28.1 kPa, P = 0.374). The total median daily calorie intake was higher in SG than CG (SG 818.5 kcal vs CG 528 kcal; P = 0.002). There was no difference in median number of days to first bowel movement (SG 3 days vs CG 4 days, P = 0.096). The median LOS was significantly shorter in SG than CG (6.5 vs 9 days; P = 0.037).

CONCLUSION

Prescribed postoperative high-calorie, low-volume oral supplements in addition to the normal dietary intake are associated with significantly better total daily oral calorie intake and may contribute to a reduced postoperative hospital stay.

Selecting the most appropriate route of feeding

This article provides an overview of the various methods available for providing nutritional support. The various techniques available for both enteral and parenteral access are discussed. The selection of the most appropriate route of nutritional support is highly individual and recommendations are made regarding the factors that should be considered by the patient and the clinician in the decision-making process.

Economic implications of growth hormone use in patients with short bowel syndrome

OBJECTIVE

Short bowel syndrome is a rare, life-threatening condition that can result in nutritional malabsorption. Parenteral nutrition provides life-saving support but can lead to complications and affect quality of life. Recombinant human growth hormone, somatropin (rDNA origin), has been shown to significantly reduce dependence on nutritional support (p < 0.05). This study evaluates the economic impact of somatropin use in the management of short bowel syndrome.

METHODS

A discrete event simulation (DES) model was developed to estimate the benefits and costs associated with somatropin use. Risks of treatment complications and of disease-related events were modeled in identical patient pairs--one receiving parenteral nutrition alone, the other receiving 4 weeks of somatropin--for 2 years following initiation of treatment. Life expectancy was assumed equivalent. Risk functions were estimated from the literature and one randomized clinical trial. Total and component costs associated with each strategy were determined. The distribution of patients reducing parenteral nutrition need and the final parenteral nutrition frequency were also estimated. Sensitivity analyses were completed for key inputs. Direct medical costs are reported in US 2004 dollars.

RESULTS

The model predicted that 96.0% of patients receiving somatropin reduce or eliminate parenteral nutrition within 6 weeks: average use was reduced by 2.8 days and one-third weaned completely. Based on 1.9 L of parenteral nutrition per day, estimated costs were 118,098 dollars in year one and 132,935 dollars in year two. With somatropin, costs dropped to 84,309 dollars in year one--despite the 17,459 dollars cost of somatropin treatment--and 81,250 dollars in year two. Over 2 years savings totaled 85,474 dollars.

LIMITATIONS

Insufficient data required that assumptions be made for some inputs. DES is new in pharmacoeconomics and may be perceived as a limitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Somatropin use improves quality of life by reducing the need for parenteral nutrition and results in health care cost savings.

Enteral nutrition and oral nutrition supplements: a review of the economics literature

BACKGROUND

We sought to review the economics literature on enteral nutrition (EN) and oral nutrition supplements (ONS) against the background of an ongoing clinical guideline development.

METHODS

We searched the Health Economic Evaluations Database, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

RESULTS

Enteral vs parenteral nutrition was found to be the most common comparison undertaken. The randomized trial evidence suggests that, in some groups of patients, EN is better in terms of clinical endpoints and/or length of hospital stay. This should translate into a lower mean cost for EN, given the reduced daily cost. These studies should be treated with caution because of their small sample size and poor quality. Costing was often crude and poorly reported, tending to focus on the narrow costs of the nutrition supplements. Only 1 study of a nutrition supplement in the community setting was found.

CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence to indicate economic advantages of enteral over parenteral nutrition and of immune-enhancing supplements relative to control diet. There is a lack of well-designed studies taking a broad view of relevant comparators, costs, and outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of different forms of nutrition in different patient groups remains to be established.

Randomized clinical trial of the effects of preoperative and postoperative oral nutritional supplements on clinical course and cost of care

BACKGROUND

Postoperative oral nutritional supplementation has been shown to be of clinical benefit. This study examined the clinical effects and cost of administration of oral supplements both before and after surgery.

METHODS

This was a randomized clinical trial conducted in three centres. Patients undergoing lower gastrointestinal tract surgery were randomized to one of four groups: group CC received no nutritional supplements, group SS took supplements both before and after surgery, group CS received postoperative supplements only, and group SC were given supplements only before surgery. Preoperative supplements were given from the time it was decided to operate to 1 day before surgery. Postoperative supplements were started when the patient was able to take free fluids and continued for 4 weeks after discharge from hospital. Data collected included weight change, complications, length of stay, nutritional intake, anthropometrics, quality of life and detailed costings covering all aspects of care.

RESULTS

Some 179 patients were randomized, of whom 27 were withdrawn and 152 analysed (CC 44, SS 32, CS 35, SC 41). Dietary intake was similar in all four groups throughout the study. Mean energy intake from preoperative supplements was 536 and 542 kcal/day in the SS and SC groups respectively; that 2 weeks after discharge from hospital was 274 and 361 kcal/day in the SS and CS groups respectively. There was significantly less postoperative weight loss in the SS group than in the CC and CS groups (P < 0.050), and significantly fewer minor complications in the SS and CS groups than the CC group (P < 0.050). There were no differences in the rate of major complications, anthropometrics and quality of life. Mean overall costs were greatest in the CC group, although differences between groups were not significant.

CONCLUSION

Perioperative oral nutritional supplementation started before hospital admission for lower gastrointestinal tract surgery significantly diminished the degree of weight loss and incidence of minor complications, and was cost-effective.

AGA technical review on parenteral nutrition

This literature review and the recommendations therein were prepared for the American Gastroenterological Association Clinical Practice and Practice Economics Committee. The paper was approved by the Committee on September 13, 2001, and by the AGA Governing Board on May 18, 2001.

Organizational aspects of starting and running an effective nutritional support service

Setting up and running a Clinical Nutritional Support Team can be challenging and is time consuming. Team members have to be motivated, committed and persistent. High quality working relationships are fundamentally important within the team, between teams and with other healthcare professionals. Good communication, careful planning, sensitive implementation and robust monitoring are the cornerstones of a successful service. Looking forward as well as back will help the team to maintain and improve its position in an ever-changing environment. While nutritional support is everyone's business, an effective multiprofessional Clinical Nutritional Support Team is the best way to ensure that patients receive appropriate and timely treatment. It is also wise to remember that a successful Clinical Nutritional Support Team will be as committed to its own development as it is to the care of the patients referred to it.

Effect of perioperative nutrition, with and without arginine supplementation, on nutritional status, immune function, postoperative morbidity, and survival in severely malnourished head and neck cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Malnourished head and neck cancer patients are at increased risk of postoperative complications.

OBJECTIVE

We studied the effect of perioperative, arginine-supplemented nutritional support on nutritional status, immune status, postoperative outcome, and survival in severely malnourished (weight loss >10% of body weight) head and neck cancer patients undergoing major surgery.

DESIGN

Forty-nine patients were randomly assigned to receive 1) no preoperative and standard postoperative tube feeding, 2) standard preoperative and postoperative tube feeding, or 3) arginine-supplemented preoperative and postoperative tube feeding.

RESULTS

Patients in both prefed groups received approximately 9 d of preoperative tube feeding, resulting in energy intakes of 110% and 113% of calculated needs (compared with 79% in the control group; P = 0.007). Compared with no preoperative feeding, preoperative enteral nutrition did not significantly improve nutritional status or any of the studied biochemical or immunologic indexes. Major postoperative complications occurred in 53%, 47%, and 59% of patients in study groups 1, 2, and 3 (NS). A trend was seen toward better survival in the arginine-supplemented group (P = 0.15). Secondary analysis showed that survivors had better human leukocyte antigen-DR expression on monocytes (P = 0.05) and higher endotoxin-induced cytokine production (P = 0.010 for tumor necrosis factor alpha and P = 0.042 for interleukin 6) at the start of the study than did patients who died.

CONCLUSIONS

Nine days of preoperative tube feeding, with or without arginine, did not significantly improve nutritional status, reduce the surgery-induced immune suppression, or affect clinical outcome in severely malnourished head and neck cancer patients. Patients supplemented with arginine-enriched nutrition tended to live longer. Some markers of immune function may distinguish patients with good or bad prognoses.

Food intake of a typical Brazilian diet among hospitalized malnourished patients

AIM

To verify whether malnourished inpatients receiving a typical Brazilian diet meet their food requirements.

METHODS

Thirty-five consecutive surgical and medical hospitalized adults, able to feed themselves, received rice and beans based diets for 3 consecutive days. All served food was weighed before and after the meals. Nutrient intake was determined and results compared to American Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA). Malnutrition was defined by the presence of at least one of these criteria: body mass index &lE 18.5 kg/m(2); height-creatinine index << 70%; or albumin level << 3. 5 g/dl.

RESULTS

Malnourished and non-malnourished patients were paired in relation to age, gender, diagnoses and clinical parameters. Despite showing distinct anthropometric parameters and laboratory data, malnourished patients ingested enough quantities of food and met or exceeded RDA for energy and other nutrients.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically-stable malnourished inpatients, supplied with rice- and beans based diets have adequate energy and nutrient intake, the same occurring for non-malnourished ones.

Review article: malnutrition and maltreatment--a comment on orlistat for the treatment of obesity

The prevalence of obesity has doubled in the last 10 years and is now reaching epidemic proportions. There is a significant comorbidity and financial cost associated with this disorder. Orlistat is an intestinal lipase inhibitor that is approved for the treatment of obesity. Recent randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated the benefit of orlistat used in conjunction with a hypocaloric (low-fat) diet in facilitating weight reduction and the long-term maintenance of this weight loss. Patients treated with orlistat lost a greater amount of initial body weight compared to those who received placebo. After 24 months of treatment, weight loss of more than 5% was maintained in a greater number of those treated with orlistat. This was associated with significant reductions in cardiovascular risk factors (cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, LDL:HDL cholesterol ratio). The main adverse events are related to fat malabsorption, with potential losses of fat-soluble vitamins and other compounds. Orlistat as a treatment for obesity, when prescribed within present guidelines, can aid modest weight loss in about one-third of patients. More importantly, it can assist in the maintenance of weight loss with major medical benefits for these patients.

Does nutritional intervention in protein-energy malnutrition improve morbidity or mortality?

Although there is an association between malnutrition and a poor clinical outcome, it does not necessarily follow that providing nutrients to such patients will improve the outcome. In fact, a number of prospective randomized controlled trials have not been able to demonstrate that nutritional support does, in general, improve morbidity or mortality. Very few such trials have been performed in patients with renal disease. Three studies in patients with acute renal failure have suggested that patients receiving parenteral nutrition using essential amino acids as the nitrogen source have better outcomes than do patients receiving equicaloric amounts of glucose, but these studies cannot exclude the possibility that the intravenous infusion of high concentrations of dextrose is detrimental. Small studies have suggested that the provision of perdialytic nutrient infusions or enteral nutrient supplements can improve measurements of nutritional status, but none of these trials described the effect of the nutritional intervention on morbidity or mortality. Two small trials have raised the possibility that supplemental ketoacids may retard the progression of chronic renal failure. There is a need for large randomized controlled trials to establish or refute the efficacy of nutritional support in renal disease. Such trials should include a control group that is not receiving any nutritional support.

Clinical economics review: medical management of inflammatory bowel disease

Inflammatory bowel diseases, although they are uncommon and rarely fatal, typically present during the period of economically productive adult life. Patients may require extensive therapeutic intervention as a result of the chronic, relapsing nature of the diseases. Their medical management includes oral and topical 5-amino salicylic acid derivatives and corticosteroids, as well as antibiotics and immunosuppressive therapies. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of rival treatments requires valid, reliable global assessments of outcome which consider quality of life, as well as the usual clinical end-points. Macro-economic studies of the overall impact of inflammatory bowel disease on health care systems have so far been largely confined to North America, where the total annual US costs, both direct and indirect, incurred by the estimated 380 000-480 000 sufferers has been put at around US2bn. Drugs were estimated to account for only 10% of total costs, whereas surgery and hospitalization account for approximately half. Studies from Europe suggest that the proportion of patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis who are capable of full time work is 75% and 90%, respectively. However, whilst only a minority of inflammatory bowel disease patients suffer chronic ill health and their life expectancy is normal, obtaining life assurance may be problematic, suggesting a misconception that inflammatory bowel disease frequently results in a major impact on an individual's economic productivity.

Enteral feeding techniques

Major technical advances in enteral nutrition include the use of erythromycin or magnetic guidance for the placement of the feeding tube into the duodenum, the development of new enteral tubes, and bedside methods to control the tube position. Percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy is becoming a safe procedure with a high success rate. Specialized diets offer little or no clinical advantages when compared with standard polymeric diets.

Perioperative nutrition: parenteral versus enteral

Malnutrition has been shown to have an adverse effect on the clinical outcome of surgical patients. During the past 25 years, investigators have sought to determine whether clinical outcome can be improved by the administration of pre- or postoperative (perioperative) nutritional support. We conclude that the clinical outcome of severely malnourished surgical patients is improved by perioperative nutritional support and that this should be administered whenever possible via the enteral route. The clinical outcome of less severely malnourished surgical patients, including those who are normally nourished, can be improved by the administration of oral dietary supplements at a time in the postoperative period when patients are ingesting free fluids. Some of these patients may also benefit from early postoperative enteral tube feeding, but further work is required to determine the effects following different types of surgery before this is adopted for routine use. Parenteral nutrition is only indicated in the postoperative period when major complications occur in association with intestinal failure.

Nutrition support in advanced cancer

Images