This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Pritchard, C. Articles by Pang, F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pritchard, C. Articles by Pang, F. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Enteral Nutrition and Oral Nutrition Supplements: A Review of the Economics Literature

Clive Pritchard, PhD^*, Steven Duffy, PGDip, Jackie Edington, PhD and Francis Pang, PhD

From the ^* Office of Health Economics, London, England; NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, England; Orion Technology, Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire, England; and Abbott Laboratories UK, Abbott House, Berkshire, England

Correspondence: Clive Pritchard, Office of Health Economics, 12 Whitehall, London SW1A 2DY, England. Electronic mail may be sent to cpritchard{at}ohe.org.

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.

Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Vol. 30, No. 1, 52-59 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/014860710603000152


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. L. Koretz The Perspective Less Viewed JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, January 1, 2006; 30(1): 63 - 65. [Full Text] [PDF]