Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated ω-3 fatty-acid enriched parenteral nutrition (PN) vs standard (non-ω-3 fatty-acid enriched) PN in adult hospitalized patients (PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018110179). We included 49 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with intervention and control groups given ω-3 fatty acids and standard lipid emulsions, respectively, as part of PN covering ≥70% energy provision. The relative risk (RR) of infection (primary outcome; 24 RCTs) was 40% lower with ω-3 fatty-acid enriched PN than standard PN (RR 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.72; P < 0.00001). Patients given ω-3 fatty-acid enriched PN had reduced mean length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (10 RCTs; 1.95 days, 95% CI 0.42-3.49; P = 0.01) and reduced length of hospital stay (26 RCTs; 2.14 days, 95% CI 1.36-2.93; P < 0.00001). Risk of sepsis (9 RCTs) was reduced by 56% in those given ω-3 fatty-acid enriched PN (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.70; P = 0.0004). Mortality rate (co-primary outcome; 20 RCTs) showed a nonsignificant 16% reduction (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65-1.07; P = 0.15) for the ω-3 fatty-acid enriched group. In summary, ω-3 fatty-acid enriched PN is beneficial, reducing risk of infection and sepsis by 40% and 56%, respectively, and length of both ICU and hospital stay by about 2 days. Provision of ω-3-enriched lipid emulsions should be preferred over standard lipid emulsions in patients with an indication for PN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary Introduction New generations of parenteral lipid emulsions combine Long Chain Triglycerides (LCTs) with Medium Chain Triglycerides (MCTs) either by physically mixing MCT- and LCT-containing oils or by using synthetically structured triglycerides (STGs). In order to clarify some open issues relating to their comparative effect, in particular in terms of clinical outcomes, pertinent evidence was systematically identified, reviewed and meta-analyzed. Methods PubMed, Scopus, Wanfang Data, China Hospital Knowledge Database and Google Scholar were searched for published clinical trials comparing STGs vs. MCTs/LCTs PN regimens administered over 5–7 days in surgical and/or critically ill patients. Two independent investigators performed screening and data extraction using a predefined list of parameters. Data were pooled using RevMan ® 5.2. Quality of evidence was assessed according to Cochrane's risk of bias tool. Pre-specified high quality (HQ), incremental analyses and a post hoc subgroup analysis were performed. Results 21 studies were included. The meta-analysis revealed a significantly better cumulative nitrogen balance (Std. mean difference [95% CI]) (1.34 [0.98–1.7], p < 0.00001), as well as higher values for pre-albumin (24.99 mg/L [6.71–43.27], p < 0.000001), and albumin (1.22 g/L [0.66–1.77] p < 0.0001), while plasma triglycerides were significantly lower (−0.28 mmol/L [−0.41 to −0.15], p < 0.0001) in the STG vs. MCT/LCT group. ALT, AST, and GGT were significantly lower with STGs than with MCTs/LCTs, while for total bilirubin and ALP only a trend was observed. STGs were also associated with a trend to a shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) (−1.74 days [−3.49 to 0.01] p = 0.05). Quality of evidence was affected by an unclear risk of selection bias, mostly due to the lack of detailed reporting (random sequence generation, allocation concealment). For the other domains, most of the weighted information was judged at low risk of bias. HQ estimated effects, incremental and subgroup analyses were consistent with the main analysis. Conclusions In postsurgical and/or critically ill patients, the administration of STGs vs. MCT/LCTs was significantly associated with improved protein economy, better liver tolerance and a more efficient triglyceride elimination. With regard to clinical outcomes a strong trend towards reduced LOS was observed for STG patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is unclear if anaesthesia maintenance with propofol is advantageous or beneficial over inhalational agents. This study is intended to compare the effects of propofol vs. inhalational agents in maintaining general anaesthesia on patient-relevant outcomes and patient satisfaction. Methods: Studies were identified by electronic database searches in PubMed™, EMBASE™ and the Cochrane™ library between 01/01/1985 and 01/08/2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of peer-reviewed journals were studied. Of 6688 studies identified, 229 RCTs were included with a total of 20,991 patients. Quality control, assessment of risk of bias, meta-bias, meta-regression and certainty in evidence were performed according to Cochrane. Common estimates were derived from fixed or random-effects models depending on the presence of heterogeneity. Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was the primary outcome. Post-operative pain, emergence agitation, time to recovery, hospital length of stay, post-anaesthetic shivering and haemodynamic instability were considered key secondary outcomes. Results: The risk for PONV was lower with propofol than with inhalational agents (relative risk (RR) 0.61 [0.53, 0.69], p < 0.00001). Additionally, pain score after extubation and time in the post-operative anaesthesia care unit (PACU) were reduced with propofol (mean difference (MD) − 0.51 [− 0.81, − 0.20], p = 0.001; MD − 2.91 min [− 5.47, − 0.35], p = 0.03). In turn, time to respiratory recovery and tracheal extubation were longer with propofol than with inhalational agents (MD 0.82 min [0.20, 1.45], p = 0.01; MD 0.70 min [0.03, 1.38], p = 0.04, respectively). Notably, patient satisfaction, as reported by the number of satisfied patients and scores, was higher with propofol (RR 1.06 [1.01, 1.10], p = 0.02; MD 0.13 [0.00, 0.26], p = 0.05). Secondary analyses supported the primary results. Conclusions: Based on the present meta-analysis there are several advantages of anaesthesia maintenance with propofol over inhalational agents. While these benefits result in an increased patient satisfaction, the clinical and economic relevance of these findings still need to be addressed in adequately powered prospective clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: A prior meta-analysis showed favorable metabolic effects of structured triglyceride (STG) lipid emulsions in surgical and critically ill patients compared with mixed medium-chain/long-chain triglycerides (MCT/LCT) emulsions. Limited data on clinical outcomes precluded pharmacoeconomic analysis. We performed an updated meta-analysis and developed a cost model to compare overall costs for STGs vs MCT/LCTs in Chinese hospitals.Methods and Study Design: We searched Medline, Embase, Wanfang Data, the China Hospital Knowledge Database, and Google Scholar for clinical trials comparing STGs to mixed MCT/LCTs in surgical or critically ill adults published between October 10, 2013 and September 19, 2015. Newly identified studies were pooled with the prior studies and an updated meta-analysis was performed. A deterministic simulation model was used to compare the effects of STGs and mixed MCT/LCT's on Chinese hospital costs.Results: The literature search identified six new trials, resulting in a total of 27 studies in the updated meta-analysis. Statistically significant differences favoring STGs were observed for cumulative nitrogen balance, pre- albumin and albumin concentrations, plasma triglycerides, and liver enzymes. STGs were also associated with a significant reduction in the length of hospital stay (mean difference, -1.45 days; 95% confidence interval, -2.48 to -0.43; p=0.005) versus mixed MCT/LCTs. Cost analysis demonstrated a net cost benefit of ¥675 compared with mixed MCT/LCTs.Conclusions: STGs are associated with improvements in metabolic function and reduced length of hospitalization in surgical and critically ill patients compared with mixed MCT/LCT emulsions. Cost analysis using data from Chinese hospitals showed a corresponding cost benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]