JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition · 2020
Cost-Effectiveness of Parenteral Nutrition Containing ω-3 Fatty Acids in Hospitalized Adult Patients From 5 European Countries and the US.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pradelli Lorenzo, Klek Stanislaw, Mayer Konstantin, Omar Alsaleh Abdul Jabbar, Rosenthal Martin D, Heller Axel R, Muscaritoli Maurizio
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: ω-3 Fatty acid (FA)-containing parenteral nutrition (PN) is associated with improvements in patient outcomes and with reductions in hospital length of stay (HLOS) vs standard PN regimens (containing non-ω-3 FA lipid emulsions). We present a cost-effectiveness analysis of ω-3 FA-containing PN vs standard PN in 5 European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) and the US.
METHODS: This pharmacoeconomic model was based on estimates of ω-3 efficacy reported in a recent meta-analysis and data from country-specific sources. It utilized a probabilistic discrete event simulation model to compare ω-3 FA-containing PN with standard PN in a population of critically ill and general ward patients. The influence of model parameters was evaluated using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: Overall costs were reduced with ω-3 FA-containing PN in all 6 countries compared with standard PN, ranging from €1741 (±€1284) in Italy to €5576 (±€4193) in the US. Expenses for infections and HLOS were lower in all countries for ω-3 FA-containing PN vs standard PN, with the largest cost differences for both in the US (infection: €825 ± €4001; HLOS: €4879 ± €1208) and the smallest savings in the UK for infections and in Spain for HLOS (€63 ± €426 and €1636 ± €372, respectively).
CONCLUSION: This cost-effectiveness analysis in 6 countries demonstrates that the superior clinical efficacy of ω-3 FA-containing PN translates into significant decreases in mean treatment cost, rendering it an attractive cost-saving alternative to standard PN across different healthcare systems.
METHODS: This pharmacoeconomic model was based on estimates of ω-3 efficacy reported in a recent meta-analysis and data from country-specific sources. It utilized a probabilistic discrete event simulation model to compare ω-3 FA-containing PN with standard PN in a population of critically ill and general ward patients. The influence of model parameters was evaluated using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: Overall costs were reduced with ω-3 FA-containing PN in all 6 countries compared with standard PN, ranging from €1741 (±€1284) in Italy to €5576 (±€4193) in the US. Expenses for infections and HLOS were lower in all countries for ω-3 FA-containing PN vs standard PN, with the largest cost differences for both in the US (infection: €825 ± €4001; HLOS: €4879 ± €1208) and the smallest savings in the UK for infections and in Spain for HLOS (€63 ± €426 and €1636 ± €372, respectively).
CONCLUSION: This cost-effectiveness analysis in 6 countries demonstrates that the superior clinical efficacy of ω-3 FA-containing PN translates into significant decreases in mean treatment cost, rendering it an attractive cost-saving alternative to standard PN across different healthcare systems.