1 Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve presenting the probability that the nutritional intervention is cost-this website effective (y-axis) for weight increase, given various ceiling ratios for willingness to pay (x-axis) QALYs as outcome At 6 months postoperatively, the intervention effect for QALYs was not statistically significant. The estimate of the intervention effect for change in QALYs was −0.02 (95% CI, −0.12–0.08; p > 0.05). The ICER for total societal costs per QALY was 36,943 Euro. As presented BMS202 concentration in Table 3, the majority of the dots in
the CEP based on total societal costs per QALY were located in the NE and SE quadrants. The ICERs located in the NE quadrant represented ratios indicating that the nutritional intervention was more costly and more effective as compared with usual care. The ICERs located in the SE represented ratios indicating that the nutritional intervention was less costly and more effective as compared with usual
care. The CEAC (Fig. 2) showed that, with a willingness to pay of 20,000 Euro per QALY, the probability that the nutritional intervention was cost-effective based on its total societal costs per QALY was 45%. If the willingness to pay is 80,000 Euro per QALY, the probability that the intervention is cost-effective increased to 60%. Fig. 2 Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve Rabusertib molecular weight presenting the probability that the nutritional intervention is cost-effective (y-axis) for QALY, given various ceiling ratios for willingness to pay (x-axis) Sensitivity analyses As cost-effectiveness of nutritional intervention
may depend on nutritional status and age (co-morbidities and postoperative complications tend to increase with age), sensitivity analyses were performed by stratifying our population for age (55–74 vs. ≥75 years) and nutritional status (malnutrition + risk of Lck malnutrition vs. no malnutrition, according to the MNA). In Table 3, ICERs and the distribution of the ICERs on the CEP are presented for these sensitivity analyses, both for weight and QALYs as outcomes. In Fig. 3, the probability that the nutritional intervention was cost-effective with respect to weight is shown for patients aged 55–74 years and patients aged ≥75 years. In older patients, the probability that the nutritional intervention was cost-effective was 100% if the society would be willing to pay 5,000 Euro or more for 1 kg weight gained. In younger patients, the probability that the intervention was cost-effective was considerably lower (40–44%). As also shown in Fig.