Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41255544›Full record

ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2025

Healthcare Resource Utilization and Cost Implications of Commercial Blenderized versus Plant-Based Standard Enteral Formulas in Children and Adults in Post-Acute Care: A Retrospective Study.

Katherine Bennett, Amarsinh Desai, Aimee Henrikson, Pamela Cekola, Jenny Liu, Pradeep Kumar, Abby Klosterbuer, Krysmaru Araujo Torres

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Katherine BennettClinical Nutrition and Lactation, Rady Children's Health, Orange, CA, USA.
Amarsinh DesaiNestlé Health Science, Bridgewater, NJ, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5857-5817
Aimee HenriksonNestlé Health Science, Bridgewater, NJ, USA.
Pamela CekolaNestlé Health Science, Bridgewater, NJ, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6889-013X
Jenny LiuLife Sciences & Healthcare, Clarivate Analytics, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Pradeep KumarLife Sciences & Healthcare, Clarivate Analytics, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abby KlosterbuerNestlé Health Science, Bridgewater, NJ, USA.
Krysmaru Araujo TorresNestlé Health Science, Bridgewater, NJ, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9786-3069

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The study investigated the potential association between commercial blenderized tube feeding formulas (CBTF) or plant-based standard tube feeding formulas (STD-TF), and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs, in children and adults receiving enteral nutrition (EN) in a post-acute care setting. Patients and Methods: United States insurance claims were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate HCRU and costs for visits to emergency department (ED), inpatient, outpatient, urgent care, and other services at 12 weeks post hospital discharge. Between-cohort comparisons were performed for proportions of patients with claims for each place of service, mean number of visits, and unadjusted and adjusted costs. Results: Significantly fewer children receiving CBTF vs plant-based STD-TF required inpatient services (16% vs 35%), urgent care (3% vs 10%), ED (15% vs 28%), and other facilities (10% vs 22%) (p < 0.001 for each comparison), with a lower mean number of visits to any healthcare service reported (28 vs 96; p < 0.001). In adults, significantly fewer patients in the CBTF cohort vs the plant-based STD-TF cohort required inpatient (23% vs 38%; p = 0.003) and other services (13% vs 27%; p < 0.001), with a corresponding lower mean number of visits to any healthcare service (24 vs 79; p < 0.001). Total unadjusted costs were significantly lower in both children and adults receiving CBTF compared with plant-based STD-TF (children: $140,962 vs $1,060,345; adults: $166,591 vs $820,905; each p < 0.001). Cost savings associated with CBTF were maintained when costs were adjusted for age, sex, and Charlson's comorbidity index. Children and adults receiving CBTF had significantly lower total adjusted costs compared with those receiving plant-based STD-TF (children: $222,735 vs $965,451; adults: $258,460 vs $919,060 each p ≤ 0.001). Conclusion: The use of CBTF was associated with lower HCRU and costs both in children and adults receiving EN in post-acute care settings. To our knowledge, this is the first large real-world study comparing these formulas in post-acute care across both populations. Although the retrospective design and lack of adjustment for all potential confounders preclude conclusions about causation, these findings may guide formula selection based on potential economic impact.

Indexed as

adult populationenteral nutritionhealthcare costshealth economicspediatric populationreal-world evidence

Identifiers

PMID41255544
PMCPMC12620906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.