OBJECTIVES: Medical nutrition (MN) targets patients with malnutrition or with specific disease such as Crohn’s disease (CD) to support their recovery. Efficacy of MN has been demonstrated in malnutrition, as well as in paediatric CD or gastrointestinal (GI) cancer surgery. However, its health economic evidence is less known. This article summarizes the findings of a systematic literature search on health economics evidence of MN in order to understand what the value for money of MN interventions is. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify publications related to health economics evidence of MN. The result of it was communicated elsewhere. For selected articles, the clinical background, basis of the analysis, health economic design and results were extracted and summarized by relevant disease areas. RESULTS: Among the 32 articles found, 11 covered malnutrition, 9 related to GI surgery, 6 studied cow milk allergies (CMA), whereas the remaining focused on various diseases. When targeting malnutrition, MN was accepted as being cost-effective and/or cost-savings from budget impact analyses. In GI surgery, when taking into account the full episode of care, oral and enteral nutrition was assessed as good value-for-money. In CMA, there was a significant healthcare budget impact of using MN to treat symptoms of this allergy. In the remaining indications, the use of enteral tube feeding was demonstrated as being cost-saving compared to parenteral nutrition. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a systematic literature search, MN interventions showed value for money in different health care settings. Although few studies calculated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), those calculated were all below thresholds applied in medical settings. In addition, most of the times MN was more effective and cost saving, thus a dominant option. However, more research is needed to strengthen economic modelling for medical nutrition interventions.