IntroductionThe EPaNIC randomized controlled multicentre trial showed that postponing initiation of parenteral nutrition (PN) in ICU-patients to beyond the first week (Late-PN) enhanced recovery, as compared with Early-PN. This was mediated by fewer infections, accelerated recovery from organ failure and reduced duration of hospitalization. Now, the trial's preplanned cost analysis (N = 4640) from the Belgian healthcare payers' perspective is reported.MethodsCost data were retrieved from individual patient invoices. Undiscounted total healthcare costs were calculated for the index hospital stay. A cost tree based on acquisition of new infections and on prolonged length-of-stay was constructed. Contribution of 8 cost categories to total hospitalization costs was analyzed. The origin of drug costs was clarified in detail through the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system. The potential impact of Early-PN on total hospitalization costs in other healthcare systems was explored in a sensitivity analysis.ResultsICU-patients developing new infection (24.4%) were responsible for 42.7% of total costs, while ICU-patients staying beyond one week (24.3%) accounted for 43.3% of total costs. Pharmacy-related costs represented 30% of total hospitalization costs and were increased by Early-PN (+608.00 EUR/patient, p = 0.01). Notably, costs for ATC-J (anti-infective agents) (+227.00 EUR/patient, p = 0.02) and ATC-B (comprising PN) (+220.00 EUR/patient, p = 0.006) drugs were increased by Early-PN. Sensitivity analysis revealed a mean total cost increase of 1,210.00 EUR/patient (p = 0.02) by Early-PN, when incorporating the full PN costs.ConclusionsThe increased costs by Early-PN were mainly pharmacy-related and explained by higher expenditures for PN and anti-infective agents. The use of Early-PN in critically ill patients can thus not be recommended for both clinical (no benefit) and cost-related reasons.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00512122.

In general dental practice, no significant difference was found in working length determined using apex locator combined with a master cone GP radiograph or using the conventional method. There is a need for larger trials to investigate these methods further.

HPN related costs accounted for the majority of the total expenses in IF patients. The costs declined after the first year due to a reduction in complications and hospital admissions.

BackgroundThe multicentre randomised controlled PEPaNIC trial showed that withholding parenteral nutrition (PN) during the first week of critical illness in children was clinically superior to providing early PN. This study describes the cost-effectiveness of this new nutritional strategy.MethodsDirect medical costs were calculated with use of a micro-costing approach. We compared the costs of late versus early initiation of PN (n = 673 versus n = 670 patients) in the Belgian and Dutch study populations from a hospital perspective, using Student’s t test with bootstrapping. Main cost drivers were identified and the impact of new infections on the total costs was assessed.ResultsMean direct medical costs for patients receiving late PN (€26.680, IQR €10.090–28.830 per patient) were 21% lower (-€7.180, p = 0.007) than for patients receiving early PN (€33.860, IQR €11.080–34.720). Since late PN was more effective and less costly, this strategy was superior to early PN. The lower costs for PN only contributed 2.1% to the total cost reduction. The main cost driver was intensive care hospitalisation costs (-€4.120, p = 0.003). The patients who acquired a new infection (14%) were responsible for 41% of the total costs. Sensitivity analyses confirmed consistency across both healthcare systems.ConclusionsLate initiation of PN decreased the direct medical costs for hospitalisation in critically ill children, beyond the expected lower costs for withholding PN. Avoiding new infections by late initiation of PN yielded a large cost reduction. Hence, late initiation of PN was superior to early initiation of PN largely via its effect on new infections.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01536275. Registered on 16 February 2012.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1936-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Intestinal Transplantation (ITx) is the most expensive abdominal organ transplant. Detailed studies about exact costs and cost-effectiveness compared to home parenteral nutrition (HPN) therapy in chronic intestinal failure (CIF) are lacking. The aim is to provide an in-depth analysis of ITx costs and evaluate cost-effectiveness compared to HPN. Methods: To calculate costs before and after ITx, costs were analyzed in 12 adult patients. To calculate costs of patients with uncomplicated CIF, 28 adult, stable HPN patients were studied. Total costs including surgery, admissions, diagnostics, HPN therapy, medication, and ambulatory care were included. Median (range) costs are given. Results: Costs prior to ITx were €69 160 (60 682-90 891) in year 2, and €104 146 (83 854-186 412) in year 1. After ITx, costs were €172 133 (122 483 -351 407) in the 1 st year, €40 619 (3 905 -113 154) in the 2 nd year, and dropped to €15 743 (4 408 -138 906) in the 3 rd year. In stable HPN patients, the costs were €83 402 (35 364 -169 146) in the 1 st year, €70 945 (31 955 -117 913) in the 2 nd year, and stabilized to €60 242 (29 161-238 136) in the 3 rd year. Conclusion:ITx, although initially very expensive, is cost-effective compared to HPN in adults by year 4, and cost saving by year 5.