ESPEN 2022 Late Breaking Abstracts
Topic: Nutrition and chronic disease
Abstract Submission Identifier: ESPEN22-LB-2134
HEALTH ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF REAL FOOD TUBE FEEDING FORMULAS COMPARED TO STANDARD TUBE FEEDING FORMULAS IN POST-ACUTE CARE ADULT PATIENTS
A. Desai*, 1, A. Henrikson 2, F. Allen 2, P. Kumar 3, V. S. S 3, K. Araujo Torres 2
1Market Access, 2Medical Affairs, Nestlé HealthCare Nutrition Inc, Bridgewater, United States, 3Data Analytics & Insights, Clarivate Analytics, Bengaluru, India
Rationale: Commercially blenderized tube feeding formulas (CBTF) containing a variety of real foods is suitable, and often preferred, for patients who have difficulty tolerating standard tube feeding formulas (STD-TF) which might be plant based but do not contain real food. Intolerance to enteral formulas can be a challenge in patients receiving home enteral nutrition and can lead to increased healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs.1 The study objective was to conduct HCRU and cost analysis of CBTF formulas compared to STD-TF in post-acute care.
Methods: Patient characteristics, medications, GI intolerance symptoms, HCRU, and costs were assessed retrospectively in adults receiving a CBTF formula (Compleat® Organic Blends, Nestlé HealthCare Nutrition, US) and STD-TF plant-based formula (Kate Farms® Standard 1.0 and 1.4, Kate Farms, Inc., US) between Jan 2018 and Dec 2020. Outcomes were compared at 84-days post discharge between the two groups.
Results: The study included 124 adults in CBTF and 324 in STD-TF group. At 84-days post-index, mean total number of visits (24 vs 79; p<0.001), outpatient (14 vs 52; p<0.001), inpatient (4 vs 12; p= 0.001) and other places of service including assisted living, intermediate care, and unidentified facilities (4 vs 9; p=0.035) were significantly lower for CBTF group compared to STD-TF. While all patients required outpatient visits, significantly fewer patients in the CBTF group required inpatient (23% vs 38%; p=0.003) and other services (13% vs 27%; p<0.001) compared to STD-TF. Among the CBTF group, decreased HCRU resulted in significant reductions in adjusted costs (USD) associated with all types of healthcare visits, total ($258,460 vs $919,060; p<0.001), outpatient ($187,502 vs $684,833; p<0.001), inpatient ($40,318 vs $110,190; p<0.001), urgent care ($3,760 vs $9,565; p<0.001) and other ($13,624 vs $95,162; p<0.001) compared to STD-TF.
Conclusion: The use of CBTF containing a variety of real food was associated with significant reductions in HCRU and costs compared to STD-TF demonstrating health economic benefits in reducing the burden to post-acute care patients and healthcare system.
References: 1. Elfadil OM et al. JPEN. 2021:1‐9.
Disclosure of Interest: A. Desai Grant / Research Support from: Nestlé HealthCare Nutrition, Other: Nestlé HealthCare Nutrition: Employment, Salary, A. Henrikson Grant / Research Support from: Nestlé HealthCare Nutrition, Other: Nestlé HealthCare Nutrition: Employment, Salary, F. Allen Grant / Research Support from: Nestlé HealthCare Nutrition, Other: Nestlé HealthCare Nutrition: Employment, Salary, P. Kumar Grant / Research Support from: Nestlé HealthCare Nutrition, Other: Analytical Services Support/Fees, V. S. S Grant / Research Support from: Nestlé HealthCare Nutrition, Other: Analytical Services Support/Fees, K. Araujo Torres Grant / Research Support from: Nestlé HealthCare Nutrition, Other: Nestlé HealthCare Nutrition: Employment, Salary
Keywords: blenderized tube feeding, enteral feeding intolerance, enteral nutrition, healthcare cost, healthcare resource use, post-acute care