ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2025
Cost-Effectiveness of Oral Nutritional Supplements in Malnourished or at Risk of Disease-Related Malnutrition Cancer Patients in North Macedonia.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of medical nutritional support in a cancer care program in North Macedonia, comparing specialized oral nutritional supplements (ONS) with the standard of care (SOC) in managing disease-related malnutrition (DRM) in patients with or at risk of tumor cachexia syndrome. Methods: A previously published decision tree model was employed to evaluate the economic impact of supportive treatment in cancer patients eligible for ONS. Monthly transition probabilities between health states, length of hospital stay for each treatment strategy, and utility parameters were derived from the literature. For base-case analysis, the cancer care program duration was set at 30 days. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of a national health insurance fund, utilizing a 13-year time horizon with monthly cycles. Only direct supportive care costs, estimated from publicly available data, were considered. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained per patient and associated costs were calculated, with outcomes and costs discounted at 3.0% annually. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess results robustness. Results: In the base case analysis, ONS was the dominant treatment strategy, with total costs per patient of €2605.01 for ONS versus €3759.23 for SOC, indicating a significant cost reduction. Reduced hospitalization expenses outweighed the higher acquisition costs of ONS. Additionally, ONS provided greater health benefits, achieving 8.21 QALY vs 7.91QALY in the SOC group. The resulting Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was negative, reinforcing ONS as the dominant strategy. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the cost-effectiveness was primarily driven by cancer program duration, with cost-saving benefits up to 132 days. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that specialized ONS is a cost-effective treatment option within a cancer care program compared with SOC. While this study focuses on North Macedonia, the results are applicable to countries with similar economic and healthcare structures, reinforcing ONS as a valuable intervention across comparable healthcare systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.