A health technology assessment of personalized nutrition interventions using the EUnetHTA HTA Core Model.

OBJECTIVES: Poor nutrition links to chronic diseases, emphasizing the need for optimized diets. The EU-funded project PREVENTOMICS, introduced personalized nutrition to address this. This study aims to perform a health technology assessment (HTA) comparing personalized nutrition interventions developed through this project, with non-personalized nutrition interventions (control) for people with normal weight, overweight, or obesity. The goal is to support decisions about further development and implementation of personalized nutrition. METHODS: The PREVENTOMICS interventions were evaluated using the European Network for HTA Core Model, which includes a methodological framework that encompasses different domains for value assessment. Information was gathered via [1] different statistical analyses and modeling studies, [2] questions asked of project partners and, [3] other (un)published materials. RESULTS: Clinical trials of PREVENTOMICS interventions demonstrated different body mass index changes compared to control; differences ranged from -0.80 to 0.20 kg/m2. Long-term outcome predictions showed generally improved health outcomes for the interventions; some appeared cost-effective (e.g., interventions in UK). Ethical concerns around health inequality and the lack of specific legal regulations for personalized nutrition interventions were identified. Choice modeling studies indicated openness to personalized nutrition interventions; decisions were primarily affected by intervention's price. CONCLUSIONS: PREVENTOMICS clinical trials have shown promising effectiveness with no major safety concerns, although uncertainties about effectiveness exist due to small samples (n=60-264) and short follow-ups (10-16 weeks). Larger, longer trials are needed for robust evidence before implementation could be considered. Among other considerations, developers should explore financing options and collaborate with policymakers to prevent exclusion of specific groups due to information shortages.

Economic Evaluation of a Personalized Nutrition Plan Based on Omic Sciences Versus a General Nutrition Plan in Adults with Overweight and Obesity: A Modeling Study Based on Trial Data in Denmark.

BACKGROUND: Since there is no diet that is perfect for everyone, personalized nutrition approaches are gaining popularity to achieve goals such as the prevention of obesity-related diseases. However, appropriate choices about funding and encouraging personalized nutrition approaches should be based on sufficient evidence of their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. In this study, we assessed whether a newly developed personalized plan (PP) could be cost-effective relative to a non-personalized plan in Denmark. METHODS: Results of a 10-week randomized controlled trial were combined with a validated obesity economic model to estimate lifetime cost-effectiveness. In the trial, the intervention group (PP) received personalized home-delivered meals based on metabolic biomarkers and personalized behavioral change messages. In the control group these meals and messages were not personalized. Effects were measured in body mass index (BMI) and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L). Costs [euros (€), 2020] were considered from a societal perspective. Lifetime cost-effectiveness was assessed using a multi-state Markov model. Univariate, probabilistic sensitivity, and scenario analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the trial, no significant differences were found in the effectiveness of PP compared with control, but wide confidence intervals (CIs) were seen [e.g., BMI (-0.07, 95% CI -0.51, 0.38)]. Lifetime estimates showed that PP increased costs (€520,102 versus €518,366, difference: €1736) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (15.117 versus 15.106, difference: 0.011); the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was therefore high (€158,798 to gain one QALY). However, a 20% decrease in intervention costs would reduce the ICUR (€23,668 per QALY gained) below an unofficial gross domestic product (GDP)-based willingness-to-pay threshold (€47,817 per QALY gained). CONCLUSION: On the basis of the willingness-to-pay threshold and the non-significant differences in short-term effectiveness, PP may not be cost-effective. However, scaling up the intervention would reduce the intervention costs. Future studies should be larger and/or longer to reduce uncertainty about short-term effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT04590989).

The lifetime health and economic burden of obesity in five European countries: what is the potential impact of prevention?

AIM: Estimating the burden of obesity in five European countries (Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK) and the potential health benefits and changes in health care costs associated with a reduction in body mass index (BMI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was used to estimate the long-term burden of obesity. Health states were based on the occurrence of diabetes, ischaemic heart disease and stroke. Multiple registries and literature sources were used to derive the demographic, epidemiological and cost input parameters. For the base-case analyses, the model was run for a starting cohort of healthy obese people with a BMI of 30 and 35 kg/m2 aged 40 years to estimate the lifetime impact of obesity and the impact of a one-unit decrease in BMI. Different scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The base-case analyses showed that total lifetime health care costs (for obese people aged 40 and BMI 35 kg/m2 ) ranged from €75 376 in Greece to €343 354 in the Netherlands, with life expectancies ranging from 37.9 years in Germany to 39.7 years in Spain. A one-unit decrease in BMI showed gains in life expectancy ranging from 0.65 to 0.68 year and changes in total health care costs varying from -€1563 to +€4832. CONCLUSIONS: The economic burden of obesity is substantial in the five countries. Decreasing BMI results in health gains, reductions in obesity-related health care costs, but an increase in non-obesity related health care costs, which emphasizes the relevance of including all costs in decision making on implementation of preventive interventions.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Interventions With a Personalized Nutrition Component in Adults.

OBJECTIVES: Important links between dietary patterns and diseases have been widely applied to establish nutrition interventions. However, knowledge about between-person heterogeneity regarding the benefits of nutrition intervention can be used to personalize the intervention and thereby improve health outcomes and efficiency. We performed a systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of interventions with a personalized nutrition (PN) component to assess their methodology and findings. METHODS: A systematic search (March 2019) was performed in 5 databases: EMBASE, Medline Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar. CEAs involving interventions in adults with a PN component were included; CEAs focusing on clinical nutrition or undernutrition were excluded. The CHEERS checklist was used to assess the quality of CEAs. RESULTS: We identified 49 eligible studies among 1792 unique records. Substantial variation in methodology was found. Most studies (91%) focused only on psychological concepts of PN such as behavior and preferences. Thirty-four CEAs were trial-based, 13 were modeling studies, and 4 studies were both trial- and model-based. Thirty-two studies used quality-adjusted life year as an outcome measure. Different time horizons, comparators, and modeling assumptions were applied, leading to differences in costs/quality-adjusted life years. Twenty-eight CEAs (49%) concluded that the intervention was cost-effective, and 75% of the incremental cost-utility ratios were cost-effective given a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions with PN components are often evaluated using various types of models. However, most PN interventions have been considered cost-effective. More studies should examine the cost-effectiveness of PN interventions that combine psychological and biological concepts of personalization.

Views of professionals and volunteers in palliative care on patient-centred care: a Q-methodology study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Patients with palliative care needs, require support with their physical needs, but also with their emotional, spiritual and social needs. Patient-Centred Care (PCC) may help organizations to support these patients according to their needs and so improve the quality of care. PCC has been shown to consist of eight dimensions, including for instance access to care and continuity of care, but these eight dimensions may not be equally important in all care settings and to all patients. Furthermore, the views of those involved in care provision may affect the choices they make concerning care and support to patients. Therefore, insight into how professionals and volunteers involved in palliative care delivery view PCC is important for understanding and improving the quality of care in the palliative sector. METHODS: This study was conducted in the palliative care setting (hospices and hospitals) in the Netherlands. Views on palliative care were investigated using the Q-methodology. Participants were asked to rank 35 statements that represented the eight dimensions of PCC in palliative care settings, and to explain their ranking during a follow-up interview. Ranking data were analysed using by-person factor analysis. Interview materials were used to help interpret the resulting factors. RESULTS: The analysis revealed two distinct viewpoints on PCC in palliative care: 'The patient in the driver seat', particularly emphasizing the importance of patient autonomy during the last phase of life, and 'The patient in the passenger seat', focussed on the value of coordination between professionals, volunteers and patients. CONCLUSIONS: The most distinguishing aspect between views on PCC in palliative care concerned control; a preference for the patient in the driver's seat versus shared decision-making by a team consisting of patient, professionals and volunteers. Different types of care and support may be most adequate to satisfy the different needs and preferences of patients with either of these views.