Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2017 Apr 20;17(1):292.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2218-z.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness analysis of early detection of patients at nutrition risk during their hospital stay through the new screening method CIPA: a study protocol

José Pablo Suárez-Llanos  1 , Néstor Benítez-Brito  2 , Laura Vallejo-Torres  3 , Irina Delgado-Brito  2 , Adriá Rosat-Rodrigo  4 , Carolina Hernández-Carballo  5 , Yolanda Ramallo-Fariña  3 , Francisca Pereyra-García-Castro  2 , Juan Carlos-Romero  5 , Nieves Felipe-Pérez  5 , Jennifer García-Niebla  4 , Eduardo Mauricio Calderón-Ledezma  5 , Teresa de Jesús González-Melián  6 , Ignacio Llorente-Gómez de Segura  2 , Manuel Ángel Barrera-Gómez  4
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Clinical and cost-effectiveness analysis of early detection of patients at nutrition risk during their hospital stay through the new screening method CIPA: a study protocol

José Pablo Suárez-Llanos et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Malnutrition is highly prevalent in hospitalized patients and results in a worsened clinical course as well as an increased length of stay, mortality, and costs. Therefore, simple nutrition screening systems, such as CIPA (control of food intake, protein, anthropometry), may be implemented to facilitate the patient's recovery process. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementing such screening tool in a tertiary hospital, consistent with the lack of similar, published studies on any hospital nutrition screening system.

Methods: The present study is carried out as an open, controlled, randomized study on patients that were admitted to the Internal Medicine and the General and Digestive Surgery ward; the patients were randomized to either a control or an intervention group (n = 824, thereof 412 patients in each of the two study arms). The control group underwent usual inpatient clinical care, while the intervention group was evaluated with the CIPA screening tool for early detection of malnutrition and treated accordingly. CIPA nutrition screening was performed upon hospital admission and classified positive when at least one of the following parameters was met: 72 h food intake control < 50%, serum albumin < 3 g/dL, body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (or mid-upper arm circumference ≤ 22.5 cm). In this case, the doctor decided on whether or not providing nutrition support. The following variables will be evaluated: hospital length of stay (primary endpoint), mortality, 3-month readmission, and in-hospital complications. Likewise, the quality of life questionnaires EQ-5D-5 L are being collected for all patients at hospital admission, discharge, and 3 months post-discharge. Analysis of cost-effectiveness will be performed by measuring effectiveness in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The cost per patient will be established by identifying health care resource utilization; cost-effectiveness will be determined through the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We will calculate the incremental cost per QALY gained with respect to the intervention.

Discussion: This ongoing trial aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing the malnutrition screening tool CIPA in a tertiary hospital.

Trial registration: Clinical Trial.gov ( NCT02721706 ). First receivevd: March 1, 2016 Last updated: April 8, 2017 Last verified: April 2017.

Keywords: Anthropometry; Body composition; Cost-benefit analysis; Inpatients; Malnutrition; Mass screening; Nutrition assessment; Quality of life.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Health care staff’s tasks to accomplish CIPA screening
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Intervention algorithm
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Edington J, Boorman J, Durrant ER, Perkins A, Giffin CV, James R, et al. Prevalence of malnutrition on admission to four hospitals in England. The malnutrition prevalence group. Clin Nutr. 2000;19:191–5. doi: 10.1054/clnu.1999.0121. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Alvarez-Hernández J, Planas Vila M, León-Sanz M, Garcíade Lorenzo A, Celaya-Pérez S, García-Lorda P, et al. Prevalence and costs of malnutrition in hospitalized patients; the PREDyCES Study. Nutr Hosp. 2012;27:1049–59. - PubMed
    1. Sorensen J, Kondrup J, Prokopowicz J, Schiesser M, Krahenbuhl L, Meier R, et al. EuroOOPS: an international, multicentre study to implement nutritional risk screening and evaluate clinical outcome. Clin Nutr. 2008;27:340–9. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2008.03.012. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Correia MI, Campos AC. Prevalence of hospital malnutrition in Latin America: the multicenter ELAN study. Nutrition. 2003;19:823–5. doi: 10.1016/S0899-9007(03)00168-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Correia MI, Waitzberg DL. The impact of malnutrition on morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay and costs evaluated through a multivariate model analysis. Clin Nutr. 2003;22:235–9. doi: 10.1016/S0261-5614(02)00215-7. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data