北马其顿营养不良或有疾病相关营养不良风险的癌症患者口服营养补充剂的成本效益

IF 2.1 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2025-03-26 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/CEOR.S504094
Aleksandra Kapedanovska Nestorovska, Zoran Sterjev
{"title":"北马其顿营养不良或有疾病相关营养不良风险的癌症患者口服营养补充剂的成本效益","authors":"Aleksandra Kapedanovska Nestorovska, Zoran Sterjev","doi":"10.2147/CEOR.S504094","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of medical nutritional support in a cancer care program in North Macedonia, comparing specialized oral nutritional supplements (ONS) with the standard of care (SOC) in managing disease-related malnutrition (DRM) in patients with or at risk of tumor cachexia syndrome.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A previously published decision tree model was employed to evaluate the economic impact of supportive treatment in cancer patients eligible for ONS. Monthly transition probabilities between health states, length of hospital stay for each treatment strategy, and utility parameters were derived from the literature. For base-case analysis, the cancer care program duration was set at 30 days. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of a national health insurance fund, utilizing a 13-year time horizon with monthly cycles. Only direct supportive care costs, estimated from publicly available data, were considered. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained per patient and associated costs were calculated, with outcomes and costs discounted at 3.0% annually. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess results robustness.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the base case analysis, ONS was the dominant treatment strategy, with total costs per patient of €2605.01 for ONS versus €3759.23 for SOC, indicating a significant cost reduction. Reduced hospitalization expenses outweighed the higher acquisition costs of ONS. Additionally, ONS provided greater health benefits, achieving 8.21 QALY vs 7.91QALY in the SOC group. The resulting Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was negative, reinforcing ONS as the dominant strategy. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the cost-effectiveness was primarily driven by cancer program duration, with cost-saving benefits up to 132 days.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings demonstrate that specialized ONS is a cost-effective treatment option within a cancer care program compared with SOC. While this study focuses on North Macedonia, the results are applicable to countries with similar economic and healthcare structures, reinforcing ONS as a valuable intervention across comparable healthcare systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":47313,"journal":{"name":"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research","volume":"17 ","pages":"265-276"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11955403/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-Effectiveness of Oral Nutritional Supplements in Malnourished or at Risk of Disease-Related Malnutrition Cancer Patients in North Macedonia.\",\"authors\":\"Aleksandra Kapedanovska Nestorovska, Zoran Sterjev\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/CEOR.S504094\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of medical nutritional support in a cancer care program in North Macedonia, comparing specialized oral nutritional supplements (ONS) with the standard of care (SOC) in managing disease-related malnutrition (DRM) in patients with or at risk of tumor cachexia syndrome.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A previously published decision tree model was employed to evaluate the economic impact of supportive treatment in cancer patients eligible for ONS. Monthly transition probabilities between health states, length of hospital stay for each treatment strategy, and utility parameters were derived from the literature. For base-case analysis, the cancer care program duration was set at 30 days. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of a national health insurance fund, utilizing a 13-year time horizon with monthly cycles. Only direct supportive care costs, estimated from publicly available data, were considered. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained per patient and associated costs were calculated, with outcomes and costs discounted at 3.0% annually. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess results robustness.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the base case analysis, ONS was the dominant treatment strategy, with total costs per patient of €2605.01 for ONS versus €3759.23 for SOC, indicating a significant cost reduction. Reduced hospitalization expenses outweighed the higher acquisition costs of ONS. Additionally, ONS provided greater health benefits, achieving 8.21 QALY vs 7.91QALY in the SOC group. The resulting Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was negative, reinforcing ONS as the dominant strategy. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the cost-effectiveness was primarily driven by cancer program duration, with cost-saving benefits up to 132 days.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings demonstrate that specialized ONS is a cost-effective treatment option within a cancer care program compared with SOC. While this study focuses on North Macedonia, the results are applicable to countries with similar economic and healthcare structures, reinforcing ONS as a valuable intervention across comparable healthcare systems.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":\"17 \",\"pages\":\"265-276\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11955403/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S504094\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S504094","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在评估北马其顿癌症护理项目中医疗营养支持的成本效益,比较专业口服营养补充剂(ONS)和标准护理(SOC)在治疗肿瘤恶病质综合征或有肿瘤恶病质综合征风险的患者的疾病相关营养不良(DRM)方面的效果。方法:采用先前发表的决策树模型来评估支持治疗对符合ONS条件的癌症患者的经济影响。健康状态之间的月转换概率、每种治疗策略的住院时间和效用参数均来自文献。对于基本病例分析,癌症治疗计划的持续时间设定为30天。该分析是从国家健康保险基金的角度进行的,采用13年的时间跨度,以月为周期。仅考虑了根据公开数据估计的直接支持性护理费用。计算每位患者获得的质量调整生命年(QALYs)和相关成本,以每年3.0%的折现率计算结果和成本。采用单向和概率敏感性分析来评估结果的稳健性。结果:在基本病例分析中,ONS是主要的治疗策略,ONS的每位患者总成本为2605.01欧元,而SOC的每位患者总成本为3759.23欧元,表明成本显著降低。减少的住院费用超过了获得ONS的较高成本。此外,ONS提供了更大的健康福利,QALY达到8.21,而SOC组的QALY为7.91。由此产生的增量成本-效果比(ICER)为负,强化了ONS作为主导策略的地位。敏感性分析证实,成本效益主要受癌症治疗持续时间的影响,成本节约效益可达132天。结论:我们的研究结果表明,与SOC相比,在癌症护理项目中,专门的ONS是一种具有成本效益的治疗选择。虽然这项研究的重点是北马其顿,但结果适用于具有类似经济和医疗结构的国家,强化了国家统计局作为可比医疗系统的有价值干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cost-Effectiveness of Oral Nutritional Supplements in Malnourished or at Risk of Disease-Related Malnutrition Cancer Patients in North Macedonia.

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of medical nutritional support in a cancer care program in North Macedonia, comparing specialized oral nutritional supplements (ONS) with the standard of care (SOC) in managing disease-related malnutrition (DRM) in patients with or at risk of tumor cachexia syndrome.

Methods: A previously published decision tree model was employed to evaluate the economic impact of supportive treatment in cancer patients eligible for ONS. Monthly transition probabilities between health states, length of hospital stay for each treatment strategy, and utility parameters were derived from the literature. For base-case analysis, the cancer care program duration was set at 30 days. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of a national health insurance fund, utilizing a 13-year time horizon with monthly cycles. Only direct supportive care costs, estimated from publicly available data, were considered. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained per patient and associated costs were calculated, with outcomes and costs discounted at 3.0% annually. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess results robustness.

Results: In the base case analysis, ONS was the dominant treatment strategy, with total costs per patient of €2605.01 for ONS versus €3759.23 for SOC, indicating a significant cost reduction. Reduced hospitalization expenses outweighed the higher acquisition costs of ONS. Additionally, ONS provided greater health benefits, achieving 8.21 QALY vs 7.91QALY in the SOC group. The resulting Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was negative, reinforcing ONS as the dominant strategy. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the cost-effectiveness was primarily driven by cancer program duration, with cost-saving benefits up to 132 days.

Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that specialized ONS is a cost-effective treatment option within a cancer care program compared with SOC. While this study focuses on North Macedonia, the results are applicable to countries with similar economic and healthcare structures, reinforcing ONS as a valuable intervention across comparable healthcare systems.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
83
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信