Economic Evaluation of Clinical, Nutritional and Rehabilitation Interventions on Oropharyngeal Dysphagia after Stroke: A Systematic Review

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Post-stroke oropharyngeal dysphagia (PS-OD) and its complications increase healthcare costs, suggesting that its appropriate management is cost-effective. We aimed to assess the efficiency of healthcare interventions in PS-OD management. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA recommendations. Four databases were searched from inception through 30 June 2021. Outcome measures were cost-effectiveness and cost-savings of healthcare interventions. English and Spanish literature were included. Narrative and tables were used to present and synthesise evidence. Quality was evaluated using the CHEERS Statement. RESULTS: A total of 244 studies were identified, and 10 were included. Screening and diagnosis of PS-OD studies found: (1) adjusted reduction in hospitalisation costs when assessed during the first admission day; (2) non-significant reduction in hospitalisation costs with OD management after thrombolysis; and (3) videofluoroscopy as the most cost-effective screening method (compared to bedside evaluation and a combination of both). Two studies showed cost-effective rehabilitation programmes, including OD management. Pelczarska et al. showed an incremental cost-utility ratio of texture-modified diets using a gum-based thickener of 20,977 PLN (4660€) following a dynamic model, and Kotecki et al. commercially prepared thickened fluids that were 44% to 59% less expensive than in situ prepared fluids. Elia et al. showed home enteral nutrition was cost-effective (£12,817/QALY), and Beavan et al. showed higher nutrient intake and low increase in hospitalisation costs using looped-nasogastric tubes (£5.20 for every 1% increase). Heterogeneity between studies precluded a quantitative synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: Included studies suggest that healthcare interventions aiming to prevent OD complications are cost-effective. However, studies assessing novel strategies are needed.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.