COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF 100% WHEY PEPTIDE-BASED FORMULAS IN US ADULTS RECEIVING HOME ENTERAL NUTRITION
Author(s)
Douglas Nguyen, MD1, Livia Dainelli, PhD2, Amarsinh Desai, PhD3, Yannick Walzer, BSc4, Sebastian Krenberger, MSc4, Stefan Walzer, PhD4;
1Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, USA, 2Nestlé Health Science, Vevey, Switzerland, 3Nestlé Health Science, Bridgewater, NJ, USA, 4MArS Market Access & Pricing Strategy GmbH, Weil am Rhein, Germany
1Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, USA, 2Nestlé Health Science, Vevey, Switzerland, 3Nestlé Health Science, Bridgewater, NJ, USA, 4MArS Market Access & Pricing Strategy GmbH, Weil am Rhein, Germany
OBJECTIVES: Peptide-based formulas are well known to have better tolerability than polymeric enteral nutrition formulas. This analysis assesses the cost-benefit of 100% whey peptide-based (100%-WP) versus polymeric formulas (PF) and other (less than 100%) peptide-based formulas (OF) in US adults receiving home enteral nutrition (HEN) as sole source of calorie intake.
METHODS: A cost-benefit analysis was conducted from US healthcare system perspective. Public sources were used for model inputs over a 12-month period. Data were normalized to a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients to standardize comparisons. Differences in clinical outcomes (gastrointestinal intolerance) and resource utilization (outpatient, inpatient and nutrition) between 100%-WP versus PF and OF were applied to cost inputs to calculate net cost savings.
RESULTS: Overall, patients consuming 100%-WP required 279 fewer inpatient visits per 1,000 patients and had 7.87 fewer hospital days across all annual stays per patient. Total costs were reduced by $3,696 per patient annually versus PF ($149,351 vs. $153,047) and by $12,835 versus OF ($149,351 vs. $162,187). The most substantial savings were seen in inpatient costs, with $18,979 and $20,188 per patient saved per year compared to PF and OF, respectively. Notably, nutrition costs were higher with 100%-WP, which were offset by reduced hospitalization expenses. Utilization of 100%-WP demonstrates potential annual cost reductions of $3,695,562 per 1,000 patients versus PF, and $12,835,456 versus OF. Reduction in use of healthcare facilities maybe attributed to the lower number of gastrointestinal intolerances, with 17.9% fewer events for 100%-WP use and 179 fewer events per 1,000 patients compared to PF and OF. Subanalyses with different calorie requirements confirmed base case results.
CONCLUSIONS: 100%-WP offers considerable cost savings in adults using HEN compared to PF and OF. It substantially reduces hospitalizations and overall healthcare costs, outweighing its higher nutrition product expenses. These findings support 100%-WP as beneficial option in US adults receiving HEN.
METHODS: A cost-benefit analysis was conducted from US healthcare system perspective. Public sources were used for model inputs over a 12-month period. Data were normalized to a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients to standardize comparisons. Differences in clinical outcomes (gastrointestinal intolerance) and resource utilization (outpatient, inpatient and nutrition) between 100%-WP versus PF and OF were applied to cost inputs to calculate net cost savings.
RESULTS: Overall, patients consuming 100%-WP required 279 fewer inpatient visits per 1,000 patients and had 7.87 fewer hospital days across all annual stays per patient. Total costs were reduced by $3,696 per patient annually versus PF ($149,351 vs. $153,047) and by $12,835 versus OF ($149,351 vs. $162,187). The most substantial savings were seen in inpatient costs, with $18,979 and $20,188 per patient saved per year compared to PF and OF, respectively. Notably, nutrition costs were higher with 100%-WP, which were offset by reduced hospitalization expenses. Utilization of 100%-WP demonstrates potential annual cost reductions of $3,695,562 per 1,000 patients versus PF, and $12,835,456 versus OF. Reduction in use of healthcare facilities maybe attributed to the lower number of gastrointestinal intolerances, with 17.9% fewer events for 100%-WP use and 179 fewer events per 1,000 patients compared to PF and OF. Subanalyses with different calorie requirements confirmed base case results.
CONCLUSIONS: 100%-WP offers considerable cost savings in adults using HEN compared to PF and OF. It substantially reduces hospitalizations and overall healthcare costs, outweighing its higher nutrition product expenses. These findings support 100%-WP as beneficial option in US adults receiving HEN.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
EE35
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Disease
STA: Nutrition