aetna better health | medicaid health plans - prior authorization … · 2020-02-24 · prior...

Nutritional Support - Medical Clinical Policy Bulletins | Aetna of 51

(https://www.aetna.com/)

Nutritional Support

Number: 0061

(Replaces CPB 144)

Policy *Please see amendment for Pennsylvania Medicaid

at the end of this CPB.

Policy History

Last Review

05/28/2020

Effective: 10/20/1995

Next

Review: 01/14/2021

Review History

Definitions

Ad d i t ion al Information

Clinical Policy Bulletin

Notes

Notes:

I. For members with such a plan benefit, specific

nutritional support is considered to be a medical item

only when it is administered enterally (i.e., by feeding

tube) or parenterally (i.e., by intravenous

administration) where the member has either (a) a

permanent * non-function or disease of the structures

that normally permit food to reach the small bowel; or

(b) disease of the small bowel that impairs digestion and

absorption of an oral diet, either of which requires

enteral or parenteral feedings to provide sufficient

nutrients to maintain weight and strength

commensurate with the member's overall health status.

Note : Not all benefit plans cover nutritional support

even in the circumstances stated above. Please check

benefit plan descriptions. Proprietary

https://www.aetna.com/


II. Aetna does not cover nutritional support that is taken

orally (i.e., by mouth), unless mandated by state law.

Oral nutrition is not considered a medical item. See

section on Special Medical Foods below.

III. Regular food products are not considered medical

items. Regular food products include food thickeners,

baby food, gluten-free food products, high protein

powders and mixes, low carbohydrate diets, normal

grocery items, nutritional supplement puddings, weight-

loss foods and formula (products to aid weight loss), or

other regular grocery products that can be mixed in

blenders and used with an enteral system regardless of

whether these regular food products are taken orally or

parenterally.

Determinants of the route of administration of nutritional

support include the functional status of the gastrointestinal

tract and the anticipated duration of therapy.

I. Enteral Tube Feedings

Enteral nutrition is the provision of nutritional requirements

through a tube into the stomach or small intestine.

The short-term methods of enteral tube feedings include

nasogastric, nasoduodenal and, less frequently, nasojejunal

tubes. Long-term enteral feedings are best administered by a

percutaneous gastrostomy or jejunostomy tube.

Aetna considers enteral tube feedings medically

necessary when the member has either (a) permanent *

non-function or disease of the structures that normally

permit food to reach the small bowel; or (b) disease of

the small bowel that impairs digestion and absorption

of an oral diet, either of which requires tube feedings to

provide sufficient nutrients to maintain weight and

Proprietary


strength commensurate with the member's overall

health status.

The member's condition could be either an anatomic abnormality

(e.g., obstruction due to head and neck cancer or reconstructive

surgery, etc.) or a motility disorder (e.g., severe dysphagia

following a stroke, neuromuscular or disease of the central

nervous system that interferes with the ability to chew or

swallow, etc.). Enteral nutrition is not considered medically

necessary for members with a functioning gastrointestinal tract

whose need for enteral nutrition is due to reasons such as

anorexia or nausea associated with mood disorder, end-stage

disease, etc.

The member must require tube feedings to maintain weight and

strength commensurate with the member's overall health status.

Adequate nutrition must not be possible by dietary adjustment

and/or oral supplements. Enteral nutrition may be considered

medically necessary for members with partial impairments (e.g.,

a member with dysphagia who can swallow small amounts of

food or a member with Crohn's disease who requires prolonged

infusion of enteral nutrients to overcome a problem with

absorption).

Note: Enteral nutrition products that are administered

orally and related supplies are not covered.

* Note: The member must have a permanent

impairment. Permanence does not require a

determination that there is no possibility that the

member's condition may improve sometime in the

future. If the judgment of the doctor, substantiated in

the medical record, is that the impairment can

reasonably be expected to exceed 3 months (90 days),

the test of permanence is considered met. This is

consistent with Center for Medicare and Medicaid

Services (CMS) guidelines.

Proprietary


Formulas consisting of semi-synthetic intact proteins or protein

isolates (e.g., Enrich, Ensure, Ensure HN, Ensure Powder, Isocal,

Lonalac Powder, Meritene, Meritene Powder, Osmolite,

Osmolite HN, Portagen Powder, Renu, Sustacal, Sustagen

Powder, Travasorb) are considered medically necessary for

enteral feeding of the majority of older members who meet

criteria for enteral feeding. Formulas consisting of natural intact

proteins or protein isolates (e.g., Compleat B, Compleat B

Modified, Vitaneed) are considered medically necessary for

enteral feeding of members with an allergy or intolerance to semi-

synthetic formulas. Calorically dense formulas are also considered

medically necessary for enteral feedings if they are indicated. The

medical necessity for special formulas for enteral feedings must be

justified in each member.

Infant Formula

Note : Infant formulas are only covered if administered

via the tube-feeding route and the criteria for coverage

of enteral feedings are met. Infant formulas given orally

are not covered. In addition, breast milk additive to

prevent necrotizing enterocolitis in premature infants is

only covered if administered via the tube-feeding route

and the criteria for coverage of enteral feedings are

met.

Equipment

Appropriate nutrients, administration supplies, and equipment are

considered medically necessary for persons who meet criteria for

enteral feedings. Tube feedings are usually given by gravity

feedings or syringe. Pumps are considered medically necessary

durable medical equipment (DME) only where gravity feedings

or syringe feedings have caused complications or are otherwise

not indicated (e.g., gravity feeding is not satisfactory due to

reflux and/or aspiration, severe diarrhea, dumping syndrome,

administration rate less than 100 ml/hr, blood glucose

fluctuations, circulatory overload, gastrostomy/jejunostomy tube

Proprietary


used for feeding). More than 3 nasogastric tubes or 1

gastrostomy/jejunostomy tube every 3 months is rarely

considered medically necessary.

Note: Some Aetna plans exclude coverage of DME and

supplies. Please check benefit plan descriptions.

II. R elizorb

Aetna considers digestive enzyme cartridges (e.g. Relizorb,

Alcresta Pharmaceuticals) which connect to enteral feeding tubes

for hydrolysis (digestion) of fats in enteral formula, medically

necessary for persons with cystic fibrosis on enteral feedings.

III. Parenteral Nutrition/Total Parenteral Nutrition (TPN)

Parenteral nutrition involves the delivery of micronutrients and

macronutrients through catheters in central or peripheral veins.

In most instances, the central venous route is utilized; for long-

term total parenteral nutrition (TPN), a central catheter (e.g.,

Hickman, Broviac, PIC) is burrowed through a subcutaneous

tunnel on the anterior chest.

Generally, the parenteral approach is considered medically

necessary only if adequate nutritional intake is not possible via

the oral or tube-feeding route.

Aetna considers parenteral nutrition medically necessary for

members who meet any of the following criteria:

A. Documentation of a failure of enteral (i.e., oral or

tube feeding) nutrition, as defined by either of the

following:

1. A non-edematous or post-dialysis documented loss of

greater than 10 % of body weight over a 3-month

period; or

2. Total protein less than 6 g/dL or serum albumin

Proprietary


less than 3.4 g/dL;

B. A condition in which it is necessary for the

gastrointestinal tract to be totally non-functioning for a

period of time;

C. Evidence of structural or functional bowel disease that

makes oral and tube feedings inappropriate;

D. Hyperemesis gravidarum (only in cases of failed

medical management or when used in a step-therapy

program);

E. Member is peri-operative (regardless of disease

state) and unable to tolerate oral or tube feedings.

Parenteral nutrition may be either “self-mixed” (i.e., the member

or family caregiver is taught to prepare the nutrient solution

aseptically) or “pre-mixed”. The doctor must justify the need for

pre-mixed parenteral nutritional solutions.

Parenteral nutrition is not considered medically necessary for

members with a functioning gastrointestinal tract whose need for

parenteral nutrition is only due to:

A. A physical disorder impairing food intake such as the

dyspnea of severe pulmonary or cardiac disease;

B. A psychological disorder impairing food intake such as

depression;

C. A side effect of a medication;

D. A swallowing disorder;

E. A temporary defect in gastric emptying such as a

metabolic or electrolyte disorder;

F. Disorders inducing anorexia such as cancer;

G. Renal failure and/or dialysis. *

*Members receiving intra-dialytic parenteral nutrition

must meet the criteria for total parenteral nutrition set

forth above.

Proprietary


Aetna considers intra-peritoneal nutrition experimental

and investigational. Aetna considers intra-peritoneal

amino acid (IPAA) supplementation medically necessary

for members on peritoneal dialysis when all of the

following criteria are met:

A. Inability to administer or tolerate adequate oral

protein nutrition, including food supplements, or

enteral tube feeding; and

B. The combination of some oral or enteral intake that,

when combined with IPAA, will meet the individual's

nutritional goals; and

C. There is evidence of inadequate dietary protein

intake and protein malnutrition.

Equipment

If the criteria for parenteral nutrition are met, medically

necessary nutrients, administration supplies, and equipment are

considered medically necessary.

IV. Special Medical Foods Taken Orally

Note: Aetna covers special medical foods only when

mandated by state law.

Special medical foods are used for the treatment of inborn errors

of metabolism (histidinemia, homocystinuria, maple syrup urine

disease [MSUD], phenylketonuria [PKU], and tyrosinemia). The

special oral formulas are designed to restrict intake of one or

more amino acids. Some states now have mandates requiring

coverage of these dietary formulas.

Aetna does not cover banked breast milk, food

supplements, specialized infant formulas, vitamins

and/or minerals taken orally (i.e., by mouth).

Proprietary


Food supplements, specialized infant formulas (e.g., Alimentum,

Elecare, Neocate, and Nutramigen), lactose-free foods, vitamins

and/or minerals may be used to replace intolerable foods, for

lactose intolerance, to supplement a deficient diet, or to provide

alternative nutrition in the presence of such conditions as

allergies, gastrointestinal disorders, hypoglycemia, and obesity.

Food supplements, lactose-free foods, specialized infant

formulas, vitamins and/or minerals taken orally are not covered,

even if they are required to maintain weight or strength and

regardless of whether these are prescribed by a physician.

Most Aetna plans do not specifically include coverage of infant

formulas when taken orally. In the absence of a specific

inclusion or state mandate, specialized infant formulas are not

covered.

V. En teral Nutrition/Enteral Feeding

Aetna considers enteral nutrition for induction and maintenance

of remission in adults with Crohn's disease experimental and

investigational because of insufficient evidence in the peer-

reviewed literature.

Aetna considers enteral nutrition for the treatment of

eating disorders (except in life-saving cases of severe

cases of anorexia nervosa) experimental and

investigational because of insufficient evidence in the

peer-reviewed literature.

Background

Parenteral nutrition involves the delivery of micronutrients and

macronutrients through catheters in central or peripheral

veins. In most instances, the central venous route is utilized,

Proprietary


and for long-term total parenteral nutrition a central catheter

(e.g., Hickman, Broviac, PIC) is burrowed through a

subcutaneous tunnel on the anterior chest.

Enteral nutrition can be administered via a small catheter

placed through the nose into the stomach or by a surgically

placed catheter into the stomach or intestines. Enteral

nutrition therapy may supplement protein and calories in a

variety of situations where oral nutrition is not adequate, with

the intention of providing part or all of the daily requirements.

Specialized diets for specific diseases or pathophysiologic

situations may be administered via enteral nutrition. These

specialized diets may involve restricting a particular element of

the diet (e.g., fat, lactose), adding a particular nutrient that may

be required in larger amounts than are available from a regular

diet (e.g., calcium, potassium), or altering the consistency of

the diet (e.g., high-fiber, full-liquid).

The need for specialized foods is very common, and for most

conditions, the specialized food is needed for the person's

entire lifetime. For example, in Europe and the United States,

the prevalence of lactose intolerance is 7 to 20 % in

Caucasians, and is as high as 80 to 95 % among Native

Americans, 65 to 75 % among Africans and African

Americans, and 50 % in Hispanics (Scrimshaw et al, 1988).

The prevalence exceeds 90 % in some populations in eastern

Asia.

Another example of a common medical condition requiring a

specialized diet is celiac disease (also called gluten-sensitive

enteropathy and non-tropical sprue), with a prevalence of

almost 1 % of the population (Fasano et al, 2003). There are

many other examples where specialized diets are prescribed,

which could extend to specialized diets for hypertension,

diabetes, or cardiovascular disease.

Aetna's policy on parenteral and enteral nutrition is similar to

Medicare policy. Medicare provides reimbursement under the

Proprietary


part-B prosthetic-device benefit for parenteral and enteral

nutrition. Consistent with its policy of covering supplies

necessary for use of prosthetics, Medicare will generally cover

medically necessary supplies, equipment, and nutrients

associated with parenteral and enteral nutrition if the coverage

requirements for enteral or parenteral nutritional therapy are

met under the prosthetic device benefit provision.

Sullivan et al (2010) evaluated the health benefits of an

exclusively human milk-based diet compared with a diet of

both human milk and bovine milk-based products in extremely

premature infants. Infants fed their own mothers' milk were

randomized to 1 of 3 study groups. Groups HM100 and HM40

received pasteurized donor human milk-based human milk

fortifier (HMF) when the enteral intake was 100 and 40

ml/kg/day, respectively, and both groups received pasteurized

donor human milk if no mother's milk was available. Group

BOV received bovine milk-based HMF when the enteral intake

was 100 ml/kg/day and preterm formula if no mother's milk

was available. Outcomes included duration of parenteral

nutrition, morbidity, and growth. The 3 groups (total n = 207

infants) had similar baseline demographic variables, duration

of parenteral nutrition, rates of late-onset sepsis, and growth.

The groups receiving an exclusively human milk diet had

significantly lower rates of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC; p =

0.02) and NEC requiring surgical intervention (p = 0.007). The

authors concluded that for extremely premature infants, an

exclusively human milk-based diet is associated with

significantly lower rates of NEC and surgical NEC when

compared with a mother's milk-based diet that also includes

bovine milk-based products.

Ganapathy et al (2012) evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a

100 % human milk-based diet composed of mother's milk

fortified with a donor human milk-based HMF versus mother's

milk fortified with bovine milk-based HMF to initiate enteral

nutrition among extremely premature infants in the neonatal

intensive care unit (NICU). A net expected costs calculator

Proprietary


was developed to compare the total NICU costs among

extremely premature infants who were fed either a bovine milk-

based HMF-fortified diet or a 100 % human milk-based diet,

based on the previously observed risks of overall NEC and

surgical NEC in a randomized controlled study that compared

outcomes of these 2 feeding strategies among 207 very low

birth-weight infants. The average NICU costs for an extremely

premature infant without NEC and the incremental costs due

to medical and surgical NEC were derived from a separate

analysis of hospital discharges in the state of California in

2007. The sensitivity of cost-effectiveness results to the risks

and costs of NEC and to prices of milk supplements was

studied. The adjusted incremental costs of medical NEC and

surgical NEC over and above the average costs incurred for

extremely premature infants without NEC, in 2011 US$, were

$74,004 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: $47,051 to $100,957)

and $198,040 (95 % CI: $159,261 to $236,819) per infant,

respectively. Extremely premature infants fed with 100 %

human-milk based products had lower expected NICU length

of stay and total expected costs of hospitalization, resulting in

net direct savings of 3.9 NICU days and $8,167.17 (95 % CI:

$4,405 to $11,930) per extremely premature infant (p <

0.0001). Costs savings from the donor HMF strategy were

sensitive to price and quantity of donor HMF, percentage

reduction in risk of overall NEC and surgical NEC achieved,

and incremental costs of surgical NEC. The authors

concluded that compared w ith feeding extremely premature

infants with mother's milk fortified with bovine m ilk-based

supplements, a 100 % human milk-based diet that includes

mother's milk fortified with donor human milk-based HMF may

result in potential net savings on medical care resources by

preventing NEC.

Relizorb

Fat malabsorption is most common in individuals who cannot

produce or secrete adequate amounts of digestive enzymes

because of compromised pancreatic function. According to

Proprietary


current United European Gastroenterology guidelines (Lohr, et

al., 2018), "enteral nutrition is indicated with PERT [pancreatic

enzyme replacement therapy] administered alongside where

necessary (GRADE 2C, strong agreement)" in persons with

pancreatic insufficiency who are unable to achieve adequate

intake with oral nutrition.

There is little evidence to support how PERT is best

administered and optimised in people with CF receiving

enteral nutrition (van der Haak & Kench, 2017). In the absence

of sufficient evidence, a number of techniques have been

described including oral administration, PERT suspended in

juice, PERT dissolved in bicarbonate and administered via an

enteral feeding tube, and administration of crushed

microspheres via an enteral feeding tube.

According to the manufacturer, Relizorb is considered a first of

it's kind enzyme cartridge. It is designed to mimic the action of

pancreatic lipase for use in adults receiving enteral tube

feedings (Medscape, 2015). Relizorb is an enzyme packed

cartridge indicated for use in adults to hydrolyze fats in entral

formula. The cartridge fits in line with enteral feeding systems,

and is connected between the infusion pump and the feeding

tube. The active ingredient is the digestive enzyme lipase,

attached to polymetric carriers together called iLipase. As the

formula passes through Relizorb, it makes contact with the

iLipase, and fats in the formula are modified to more

absorbable forms prior to ingestion. It was cleared for

marketing by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this

indication. However, efficacy data are limited and Relizorb has

not been compared to other methods of administration of

PERT. Therefore, there is an insufficient evidence base to

support its use at this time.

Schwarzenberg and associates (2016) stated that nutrition is

integral to the care of individuals with cystic fibrosis (CF).

Better nutritional status is associated with improved pulmonary

function. In some individuals with CF, enteral tube feeding can

Proprietary


be useful in achieving optimal nutritional status. Current

nutrition guidelines do not include detailed recommendations

for enteral tube feeding. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation

convened an expert panel to develop enteral tube feeding

recommendations based on a systematic review of the

evidence and expert opinion. These guidelines addressed

when to consider enteral tube feeding, assessment of

confounding causes of poor nutrition in CF, preparation of the

patient for placement of the enteral feeding tube, management

of the tube after placement and education about enteral

feeding. These recommendations are intended to guide the

CF care team, individuals with CF, and their families through

the enteral tube feeding process. The guideline stated that an

inline cartridge enzyme (lipase) delivery system for enteral

feeds was approved by the FDA for adults during the

development of these guidelines; evaluation of its benefits and

limits should be considered before use.

In a multi-center, randomized, double-blind, cross-over, open-

label clinical trial, Freedman and colleagues (2017) evaluated

the safety, tolerability, and fat absorption of a new in-line

digestive cartridge (Relizorb) that hydrolyzes fat in enteral

formula provided to patients with CF. Plasma omega-3 fatty

acid (FA) concentrations were measured and used as markers

of fat absorption. Gastro-intestinal symptoms were recorded

to evaluate safety and tolerability. Information regarding the

effect of enteral nutrition (EN) on appetite and breakfast

consumption was also collected. Before study entry,

participants had received EN for a mean of 6.6 years at a

mean volume of approximately 800 ml, yethad a mean body

mass index (BMI) of only 17.5 kg/m and omega-3 FA plasma

concentrations were only 60 % of levels found in normal

healthy subjects. Compared with placebo, cartridge use

resulted in a statistically significant 2.8-fold increase in plasma

omega-3 FA concentrations. There were no adverse

experiences associated with cartridge use, and a decrease in

the frequency and severity of most symptoms of malabsorption

was observed with cartridge use. Participants reported

Proprietary


increased preservation of appetite and breakfast consumption

with cartridge use compared with their pre-study regimen. The

authors concluded that the use of this in-line digestive

cartridge was safe and well-tolerated, and resulted in

significantly increased levels of plasma omega-3 FA used with

enteral formula, suggesting an overall increased fat

absorption.

The authors of this manufacturer-sponsored study stated that

the main drawback of this study was the small sample size (n

= 34). Despite the relatively small sample size, the study,

however, included approximately 1 % of the population of

patients with CF who receive EN. In addition, the age range of

the study population is representative of the population of

patients with CF in the United States. The authors stated that

these study results should be generalizable to the larger

population of patients with CF and exocrine pancreatic

insufficiency who receive supplemental EN. Only 1 feeding

through digestive cartridge was, however, used to measure its

effect on fat absorption, and only 7 days of digestive cartridge

use were used to measure its safety. They stated that a longer-

term study is currently ongoing to assess the effects of

sustained digestive cartridge use, particularly without

concomitant pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy.

Alkaade and Vareedayah (2017) stated that exocrine

pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) is characterized by a deficiency

of exocrine pancreatic enzymes, resulting in deficits in

digestion of all macronutrients, with deficiencies in digestion of

fats being the most clinically relevant. The leading cause of

EPI is chronic pancreatitis. However, many other causes and

conditions may be implicated, including CF, pancreatic duct

obstruction, gastric and pancreatic surgery, diabetes mellitus

and other conditions. Physical and biochemical causes of EPI

include decreased production and secretion of lipase,

increased lipase destruction, pancreatic duct obstruction,

decreased lipase stimulation and degradation, as well as

gastro-intestinal (GI) motility disorders. Exocrine pancreatic

Proprietary


insufficiency is largely diagnosed clinically, and is often

identified by symptoms such as steatorrhea, weight loss,

abdominal discomfort, and abdominal bloating. Lifestyle

modifications (e.g., smoking cessation, limiting or avoiding

alcoholic drinks, and reducing dietary fat intake) and

exogenous pancreatic enzyme supplements are commonly

used to help restore normal digestion and absorption of dietary

nutrients in patients with EPI. The authors noted that

approximately 44 % of patients with CF require oral

supplemental nutrition, and 11 % require enteral tube feeding.

Nutrient utilization may be improved using semi-elemental or

elemental enteral products or dosing pancreatic enzyme

replacement therapy (PERT) with enteral feedings.

Additionally, a recently approved in-line medical device with

immobilized lipase (Relizorb) has been developed to hydrolyze

fats in enteral formula.

Nguyen (2017) noted that EN is preferred over parenteral

nutrition (PN) as a result of the greater safety of EN therapy

and comparative convenience. A wide variety of EN products

have been developed, including disease-specific products to

help manage the nutritional needs of patients with kidney

failure, liver failure, lung disease, diabetes, and other

conditions. An assessment of each patient's nutritional needs

and digestive function should be conducted prior to initiation of

EN therapy. Other considerations in determining the

appropriate route and method of EN administration include the

time and nursing involvement required for administration,

potential complications of medication administration, and

concerns related to pancreatic dysfunction in certain groups.

The author noted that (i) a recently approved in-line medical

cartridge with immobilized lipase (Relizorb) hydrolyzes fats in

enteral formulas just prior to delivery into the patient with an

enteral feeding tube; and (ii) to eliminate the challenges of

PERT administration, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation indicates

Relizorb may be used to deliver enteral formula in this

population.

Proprietary


Freedman (2017) stated that patients with EPI have

suboptimal secretion of pancreatic digestive enzymes and

experience a range of clinical symptoms related to the

malabsorption of fat. In patients with EPI unable to meet their

nutritional requirements, EN support is used to augment

nutritional status. In addition to protein and carbohydrate, EN

formulas contain fats as a calorie source, as well as vitamins

and minerals to help prevent nutritional deficiencies related to

malabsorption. Semi-elemental EN formulas are

advantageous as they contain hydrolyzed protein, shorter

chain carbohydrates, and may contain medium chain

triglycerides as a fat source. However, severely pancreatic

insufficient patients may be unable to absorb complex long-

chain triglycerides provided by EN formulas due to insufficient

pancreatic lipase; replacement pancreatic enzyme products

are recommended for these patients. The author stated that

currently, none of the FDA-approved PERT products are

indicated for use in patients receiving EN and administration of

enzymes by mixing into EN formula is not supported by

guidelines as this route is associated with risks. Relizorb

(immobilized lipase) is a novel in-line digestive cartridge that

has been designed to address the unmet need for PERT in

patients receiving EN. Relizorb efficacy and compatibility with

a range of commercially available polymeric and semi-

elemental formulas with varying nutrient, caloric content, and

triglyceride chain lengths have been demonstrated. In most

formulas, Relizorb efficiently hydrolyzed greater than 90 % of

fats within the formula into absorbable FAs and

monoglycerides.

Freedman and colleagues (2018) noted that PI and

malabsorption of fats lead to reduced caloric intake, inability to

maintain weight, and increased GI symptoms; thus, EN is used

in patients with CF and poor nutritional status. In an industry-

sponsored study, these researchers evaluated safety,

tolerability and improvement of FA status in red blood cell

(RBC) membranes, a marker of long-term FA absorption, with

an in-line digestive cartridge (Relizorb) that hydrolyzes fat in

Proprietary


enteral formula. Patients with CF receiving EN participated in

a multi-center, 90-day open-label study during which Relizorb

was used with overnight EN. The primary end-point was

change over time in RBC uptake of docosahexaenoic acid

(DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA); GI symptoms were

collected to evaluate safety and tolerability. Several clinical

and anthropometric parameters were also assessed

throughout the study. A total of 36 subjects completed the

study with a mean age of 13.6 years, BMI of 17.7 and 6.2

years mean use of over-night EN. Fat absorption significantly

improved as shown by increased RBC levels of DHA+EPA,

improved ω-6/ω-3 ratio, and increased plasma levels of

DHA+EPA; Relizorb use was not associated with any

unanticipated adverse events (AEs). The authors concluded

that this study established the safety and tolerability of

Relizorb and showed its potential to normalize fat absorption,

improve symptoms commonly associated with fat mal-

absorption and enhance nutritional status in patients with CF

receiving EN feedings. They stated that this was the 1st

prospective study to show EN can improve FA abnormalities in

CF. Since improvement in omega-3 levels has been shown to

help pulmonary and inflammatory status as well as

anthropometric parameters in CF, Relizorb may have

important long-term therapeutic benefits in patients with CF.

Moreover, these investigators stated that it is not possible to

draw definitive conclusions from the current and previous

Relizorb studies regarding the influence of Relizorb use on

changes in patient anthropometric measurements.

The authors stated that this study had several drawbacks. It

was a relatively small study (n = 36). In addition, the study

was strictly open-label and was not intended to compare

outcomes between participants who did and did not use

Relizorb. Furthermore, other than enteral nutrition, dietary

intake was not recorded during the study, limiting the ability to

determine if oral caloric intake was adequate to lead to weight

gain. Additionally, the study may not have been long enough

to observe an increase in body weight or BMI for patients in a

Proprietary


relatively fat-starved condition. Furthermore, because the

current study did not measure body tissue composition, it is

unknown whether subjects improved their tissue composition

without changing body weight or size. It may turn out that

nutritional health may be more accurately measured using

biomarkers other than the traditional body weight and BMI.

Body tissue composition, including fat mass, fat-free mass,

and lean body mass may be more important to overall health

than body size or mass. It is likely that body tissue

composition is an indirect measure of important cellular and

molecular processes that may be directly measured using

molecules such as long-chain polyunsaturated FAs

(LCPUFAs), which are essential building blocks of cell

membranes and play important roles in cell and tissue function

throughout the body.

Formula versus Donor Breast Milk for Feeding Preterm or Low Birth Weight Infants

Quigley and colleagues (2018) noted that when sufficient

maternal breast milk is not available, alternative forms of EN

for preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants are donor breast

milk or artificial formula. Donor breast milk may retain some of

the non-nutritive benefits of maternal breast milk for preterm or

LBW infants. However, feeding with artificial formula may

ensure more consistent delivery of greater amounts of

nutrients. Uncertainty exists about the balance of risks and

benefits of feeding formula versus donor breast milk for

preterm or LBW infants. In a Cochrane review, these

investigators determined the effect of feeding with formula

compared with donor breast milk on growth and development

in preterm or LBW infants. They used the Cochrane Neonatal

search strategy, including electronic searches of the Cochrane

Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue

6), Ovid Medline, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to

Nursing and Allied Health Literature ( until June 8, 2017), as

well as conference pr oceedings and previous reviews.

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs)

Proprietary


comparing f eeding with formula versus donor breast milk in

preterm or LBW infants were selected for analysis. Two

review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and

extracted data independently. They analyzed treatment

effects as described in the individual trials and reported risk

ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) for dichotomous data,

and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with

respective 95 % CIs. These researchers used a fixed-effect

model in meta-analyses and explored pot ential causes of

heterogeneity in subgroup ana lyses. They assessed the

quality of evidence for the main comparison at the outcome

level using "Grading of Recommendations Assessment,

Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) methods. A total of

11 trials, in which 1,809 infants participated in total, fulfilled the

inclusion criteria; 4 trials compared standard term formula

versus donor breast milk; and 7 compared nutrient-enriched

preterm formula versus donor breast milk. Only the 4 most

recent trials used nutrient-fortified donor breast milk. The trials

contain various weaknesses in methodological quality,

specifically concerns about allocation c oncealment in 4 trials

and lack of blinding in most of the trials. Formula-fed infants

had higher in-hospital rates of weight gain (MD 2.51, 95 % CI:

1.93 to 3.08 g/kg/day), linear growth (MD 1.21, 95 % CI: 0.77

to 1.65 mm/week) and head growth (MD 0.85, 95 % CI: 0.47 to

1.23 mm/week). These researchers did not find evidence of

an effect on long-term growth or neurodevelopment. Formula

feeding increased the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (typical

RR 1.87, 95 % CI: 1.23 to 2.85; RD 0.03, 95 % CI: 0.01 to

0.06). The GRADE quality of evidence was moderate for rates

of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth (down-graded

for high levels of heterogeneity) and was moderate for

neurodevelopmental disability, all-cause mortality, and

necrotizing enterocolitis (down-graded for imprecision). The

authors concluded that in preterm and LBW infants, feeding

with formula compared with donor breast milk, either as a

supplement to maternal expressed breast milk or as a sole

diet, resulted in higher rates of weight gain, linear growth, and

Proprietary


head growth and a higher risk of developing nec rotizing

enterocolitis. The trial data did not show an effect on all-cause

mortality, or on long-term growth or neurodevelopment.

Enteral Nutrition for Induction / Maintenance of Remission in Crohn's Disease

Narula and associates (2018) noted that corticosteroids are

often preferred over EN as induction therapy for Crohn's

disease (CD). Prior meta-analyses suggested that

corticosteroids are superior to EN for induction of remission in

CD. Treatment failures in EN trials are often due to poor

compliance, with drop-outs frequently due to poor acceptance

of a naso-gastric (NG) tube and unpalatable formulations.

This systematic review was an update of a previously

published Cochrane review. These investigators evaluated

the safety and effectiveness of exclusive EN as primary

therapy to induce remission in CD and examined the

importance of formula composition on effectiveness. They

searched Medline, Embase and CENTRAL from inception to

July 5, 2017. They also searched references of retrieved

articles and conference abstracts; RCTs involving patients with

active CD were considered for inclusion. Studies comparing

one type of EN to another type of EN or conventional

corticosteroids were selected for review. Data were extracted

independently by at least 2 authors. The primary outcome

was clinical remission; secondary outcomes included adverse

events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and withdrawal

due to AEs. For dichotomous outcomes, these researchers

calculated the RR and 95 % CI. A random-effects model was

used to pool data. They performed intention-to-treat (ITT) and

per-protocol analyses for the primary outcome. Heterogeneity

was explored using the Chi-2 and I2 statistics. The studies

were separated into 2 comparisons: one EN formulation

compared to another EN formulation; and EN compared to

corticosteroids. Subgroup analyses were based on formula

composition and age. Sensitivity analyses included abs tract

publications and poor quality studies. These investigators

Proprietary


used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess study quality.

They used the GRADE criteria to assess the overall quality of

the evidence supporting the primary outcome and selected

secondary outcomes. A total of 27 studies (1,011 participants)

were included; 3 studies were rated as low risk of bias; 7

studies were rated as high risk of bias, and 17 were rated as

unclear risk of bias due to insufficient information; 17 trials

compared different formulations of EN, 13 studies compared 1

or more elemental formulas to a non-elemental formula, 3

studies compared EN diets of similar protein composition but

different fat composition, and 1 study compared non-elemental

diets differing in glutamine enrichment. Meta-analysis of 11

trials (378 subjects) demonstrated no difference in remission

rates; 64 % (134/210) of patients in the elemental group

achieved remission compared to 62 % (105/168) of patients in

the non-elemental group (RR 1.02, 95 % CI: 0.88 to 1.18;

GRADE very low quality). A per-protocol analysis (346

participants) produced s imilar results (RR 1.04, 95 % CI: 0.91

to 1.18). Subgroup analyses performed to evaluate the

different types of elemental and non-elemental diets

(elemental, semi-elemental and polymeric) showed no

differences in remission rates. An analysis of 7 trials including

209 patients treated with EN formulas of differing fat content

(low fat: less than 20 g/1,000 kCal versus high fat: greater than

20 g/1,000 kCal) demonstrated no difference in remission

rates (RR 1.03; 95 % CI: 0.85 to 1.26). Very low fat content

(less than 3 g/1,000 kCal) and very low long chain triglycerides

demonstrated higher remission rates than higher content EN

formulas. There was no difference between elemental and non-

elemental diets in AEs rates (RR 1.00, 95 % CI: 0.63 to 1.60;

GRADE very low quality), or withdrawals due to AEs (RR 1.29,

95 % CI: 0.80 to 2.09; GRADE very low quality).

Common AEs included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and

bloating. A total of 10 trials compared EN to steroid therapy.

Meta-analysis of 8 trials (223 participants) demonstrated no

difference in remission rates between EN and steroids; 50 %

(111/223) of patients in the EN group achieved remission

compared to 72 % (133/186) of patients in the steroid group

Proprietary


(RR 0.77, 95 % CI: 0.58 to 1.03; GRADE very low quality).

Subgroup analysis by age showed a difference i n remission

rates for adults but not for children. In adults, 45 % (87/194) of

EN patients achieved remission compared to 73 % (116/158)

of steroid patients (RR 0.65, 95 % CI: 0.52 to 0.82; GRADE

very low quality). In children, 83 % (24/29) of EN patients

achieved remission compared to 61 % (17/28) of steroid

patients (RR 1.35, 95 % CI: 0.92 to 1.97; GRADE very low

quality). A per-protocol analysis produced similar results (RR

0.93, 95 % CI: 0.75 to 1.14). The per-protocol subgroup

analysis showed a difference i n remission rates for both adults

(RR 0.82, 95 % CI: 0.70 to 0.95) and children (RR 1.43, 95 %

CI: 1.03 to 1.97). There was no difference in AEs rates (RR

1.39, 95 % CI: 0.62 to 3.11; GRADE very low quality).

However, patients on EN were more likely to withdraw due to

AEs than those on steroid therapy (RR 2.95, 95 % CI: 1.02 to

8.48; GRADE very low quality). Common AEs reported in the

EN group included heartburn, flatulence, diarrhea and

vomiting, and for steroid therapy acne, moon facies,

hyperglycemia, muscle weakness and hypoglycemia. The

most common reason for withdrawal was inability to tolerate

the EN diet.

The authors concluded that very low quality evidence

suggested that corticosteroid therapy may be more effective

than EN for induction of clinical remission in adults with active

CD. Very low quality evidence also suggested that EN may be

more effective than steroids for induction of remission in

children with active CD. Protein composition did not appear to

influence the effectiveness of EN for the treatment of active

CD. EN should be considered in pediatric CD patients or in

adult patients who can comply with NG tube feeding or

perceive the formulations to be palatable, or when steroid side

effects are not tolerated or better avoided. These researchers

stated that further research is needed to confirm the

superiority of corticosteroids over EN in adults; and further

research is needed to confirm the benefit of EN in children.

Furthermore, they stated that more effort from industry should

Proprietary


be taken to develop palatable polymeric formulations that can

be delivered without use of a NG tube as this may lead to

increased patient adherence with this therapy.

Akobeng and colleagues (2018) stated that prevention of

relapse is a major issue in the management of quiescent CD.

Current therapies (e.g., methotrexate, biologics,

6-mercaptopurine and azathioprine) may be effective for

maintaining remission in CD, but these drugs may cause

significant AEs. Interventions that are safe and effective for

maintenance of remission in CD are desirable. These

investigators evaluated t he safety and efficacy of EN for the

maintenance of remission in CD and examined the impact of

formula composition on effectiveness. They searched

Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, the Cochrane IBD Group

Specialized Register and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to

July 27, 2018. They also searched references of retrieved

studies and reviews; RCTs including par ticipants of any age

with quiescent CD were considered for inclusion. Studies that

compared EN with no intervention, placebo or any other

intervention were selected for review. Two authors

independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted data

and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane r isk

of bias tool. The primary outcome was clinical or endoscopic

relapse as defined by the primary studies. Secondary

outcomes included anthropometric measures (i.e., height and

weight), quality of life (QOL), AEs, serious AEs (SAEs) and

withdrawal due to AEs. These researchers calculated the RR

and 95 % CI for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous

outcomes, they calculated the MD and 95 % CI. A random-

effects model was used for the statistical analysis. These

researchers used the GRADE criteria to assess the overall

certainty of the evidence supporting the primary outcome and

selected secondary outcomes. A total of 4 RCTs (262 adult

participants) met the inclusion criteria; 1 study (n = 33)

compared an elemental diet to a non-elemental (polymeric)

diet; 1 study (n = 51) compared a half elemental diet to a

regular free diet. Another study (n = 95) compared an

Proprietary

http://clinicaltrials.gov


elemental diet to 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) or a no treatment

control group; 1 study (n = 83) compared a polymeric diet to

mesalamine; 2 studies were rated as high risk of bias due to

lack of blinding or incomplete outcome data. The other 2

studies were judged to have an unclear risk of bias. The

studies were not pooled due to differences in control

interventions and the way outcomes were assessed. The

effect of an elemental diet compared to a polymeric diet on

remission rates or withdrawal due to AEs was uncertain; 58 %

(11/19) of participants in the elemental diet group relapsed at

12 months compared to 57 % (8/14) of participants in the

polymeric diet group (RR 1.01,95 % CI: 0.56 to 1.84; very low

certainty evidence); 32 % (6/19) of participants in the

elemental diet group were intolerant to the enteral nutritional

formula because of taste or smell and were withdrawn from the

study in the first 2 weeks compared to zero participants (0/14)

in the polymeric diet group (RR 9.75, 95 % CI: 0.59 to 159.93;

low certainty evidence). Anthropometric measures, QOL, AEs

and SAEs were not reported as outcomes. The effect of an

elemental diet (half of total daily calorie requirements)

compared to a normal free diet on relapse rates was uncertain;

35 % (9/26) of participants in the elemental diet group

relapsed at 12 months compared to 64 % (16/25) of

participants in the free diet group (RR 0.54, 95 % CI: 0.30 to

0.99; very low certainty evidence). No AEs were reported.

This study reported no differences in weight change between

the 2 diet groups. Height and QOL were not reported as

outcomes. The effect of an elemental diet compared to 6-MP

on relapse rates or AEs was uncertain; 38 % (12/32) of

participants in the elemental diet group relapsed at 12 months

compared to 23 % (7/30) of participants in the 6-MP group (RR

1.61; 95 % CI: 0.73 to 3.53; very low certainty evidence); 3 %

(1/32) of participants in the elemental diet group had an AE

compared to 13 % (4/30) of participants in the 6-MP group (RR

0.23, 95 % CI: 0.03 to 1.98; low certainty evidence); AEs in the

elemental diet group included surgery due to worsening CD;

AEs in the 6-MP group included liver injury (n = 2), hair loss (n

= 1) and surgery due to an abscess (n = 1). No SAEs or

Proprietary


withdrawals due to AEs were reported. Weight, height and

QOL were not reported as outcomes. The effect of a

polymeric diet compared to mesalamine on relapse rates and

weight was uncertain; 42 % (18/43) of participants in the

polymeric diet group relapsed at 6 months compared to 55 %

(22/40) of participants in the mesalamine group (RR 0.76; 95

% CI: 0.49 to 1.19; low certainty evidence).The MD in weight

gain over the study period was 1.9 kg higher in the polymeric

diet group compared to mesalamine (95 % CI: -4.62 to 8.42;

low certainty evidence); 2 participants in the polymeric diet

group experienced nausea and 4 had diarrhea. It was unclear

if any participants in the mesalamine group had an AE.

Height, QOL, SAEs and withdrawal due to AEs were not

reported as outcomes.

The authors concluded that the findings of this review were

uncertain and no firm conclusions regarding the safety and

efficacy of EN in quiescent CD could be drawn. They stated

that more research is needed to determine the safety and

efficacy of using EN as maintenance therapy in CD. Currently,

there are 4 ongoing studies (estimated enrolment of 280

participants). This review will be updated when the results of

these studies are available.

Guidelines on clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease

from the European Society for Parentaral and Enteral Nutrition

(Forbes, et al., 2017) state that "there is no 'IBD diet' that can

be generally recommended to promote remission in IBD

patients with active disease." The guidelines noted that, due to

strong concerns over corticosteroid use and aiming for optimal

growth in children, enteral nutrition is often first-line therapy for

pediatric patients with active Crohn's disease. The guidelines

noted that, although enteral nutrition as primary therapy in

adults with Crohn's disease has also repeatedly been

considered to be effective "the data are not robust." The

guidelines note that "meta-analyses do not support the use of

EN as primary treatment for acute exacerbations of CD in

Proprietary


adults. Patchy clinical conviction and the data, which appear

better than might be expected with placebo, ensure continuing

controversy over its role in adults."

Early Enteral Nutrition for Individuals Who Have Un dergone Lower Gastrointestinal Surgery

In a Cochrane review, Herbert and colleagues (2019)

examined if early commencement of post-operative enteral

nutrition (within 24 hours), oral intake and any kind of tube

feeding (gastric, duodenal or jejunal), compared with

traditional management (delayed nutritional supply) is

associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (LOS), fewer

complications, mortality and AEs in patients undergoing lower

gastro-intestinal (GI) surgery (distal to the ligament of Treitz).

These investigators searched the Cochrane Central Register

of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library 2017,

issue 10), Ovid Medline (1950 to November 15, 2017), Ovid

Embase (1974 to November 15, 2017). They also searched

for ongoing trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health

Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform

(November 15, 2017), and hand-searched reference lists of

identified studies and previous systematic reviews. These

researchers included R CTs comparing early commencement

of enteral nutrition (within 24 hours) with no feeding in adult

patients undergoing lower GI surgery. Two review authors

independently assessed s tudy quality using the Cochrane

'Risk of bias' tool tailored to this review and extracted data.

Data analyses were conducted according to the Cochrane

recommendations. They rated the quality of evidence

according to GRADE. Primary outcomes were LOS and post-

operative complications (wound i nfections, intra-abdominal

abscesses, anastomotic dehiscence, pneumonia). Secondary

outcomes were: mortality, AEs (nausea, vomiting), and QOL;

LOS was estimated using MD (presented as mean +/- SD).

For other outcomes, these researchers estimated the common

RR and calculated the associated 95 % CIs. For analysis,

these investigators used an inverse-variance random-effects

Proprietary

http://clinicaltrials.gov


model for the primary outcome (LOS) and Mantel-Haenszel

random-effects models for the secondary outcomes. They

also performed T rial Sequential Analyses (TSA). These

researchers identified 17 RCTs with 1,437 patients undergoing

lower GI surgery. Most studies were at high or unclear risk of

bias in 2 or more domains; 6 studies were judged as having

low risk of selection bias for random sequence generation and

insufficient details were provided for judgement on allocation

concealment in all 17 studies. With regards to performance

and deception bias; 14 studies reported no attempt to blind

subjects and blinding of personnel was not discussed either.

Only 1 study was judged as low risk of bias for blinding of

outcome assessor. With regards to incomplete outcome data,

3 studies were judged to be at high risk because they had

more than 10 % difference in missing data between groups.

For selective reporting, 9 studies were judged as unclear as

protocols were not provided and 8 studies had issues with

either missing data or incomplete reporting of results. LOS

was reported in 16 studies (1,346 subjects). The mean LOS

ranged from 4 to 16 days in the early feeding groups and from

6.6 to 23.5 days in the control groups. Mean difference in LOS

was 1.95 (95 % CI: -2.99 to -0.91, p < 0.001) days shorter in

the early feeding group. However, there was substantial

heterogeneity between included studies (I2 = 81 %, Chi2 =

78.98, p < 0.00001), thus the overall quality of evidence for

LOS was low. These results were confirmed by the TSA

showing that the cumulative Z-curve crossed the trial

sequential monitoring boundary for benefit. These

investigators found no differences in the incidence of post-

operative complications: wound infection ( 12 studies, 1,181

subjects, RR 0.99, 95 % CI: 0.64 to 1.52, very low-quality

evidence), intra-abdominal abscesses (6 studies, 554

subjects, RR 1.00, 95 % CI: 0.26 to 3.80, low-quality

evidence), anastomotic leakage/dehiscence ( 13 studies, 1,232

subjects, RR 0.78, 95 % CI: 0.38 to 1.61, low-quality evidence;

number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome

(NNTB) = 100), and pneumonia (10 studies, 954 subjects, RR

0.88, 95 % CI: 0.32 to 2.42, low-quality evidence; NNTB =

Proprietary


333). Mortality was reported in 12 studies (1,179 subjects),

and showed no between-group differences (RR = 0.56, 95 %

CI: 0.21 to 1.52, p = 0.26, I2 = 0 %, Chi2 = 3.08, p = 0.96, low-

quality evidence). The most commonly reported cause of

death was anastomotic leakage, sepsis and acute myocardial

infarction (MI); 7 studies (613 subjects) reported vomiting (RR

1.23, 95 % CI: 0.96 to 1.58, p = 0.10, I2 = 0 %, Chi2 = 4.98, p

= 0.55, low-quality evidence; number needed to treat for an

additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 19), and 2 studies (118

subjects) reported nausea (RR 0.95, 0.71 to 1.26, low-quality

evidence); 4 studies reported combined nausea and vomiting

(RR 0.94, 95 % CI: 0.51 to 1.74, very low-quality evidence); 1

study reported QOL assessment; the scores did not differ

between groups at 30 days after discharge on either QOL

scale EORTC QLQ-C30 or EORTC QlQ-OV28 (very low-

quality evidence). The authors concluded that the findings of

this review suggested that early enteral feeding m ay lead to a

reduced post-operative LO S, however cautious interpretation

must be taken due to substantial heterogeneity and low-quality

evidence. For all other outcomes (post-operative

complications, mortality, AEs, and QOL) the findings were

inconclusive, and further studies are needed to enhance the

understanding of early feeding for these. In this updated

review, only a few additional studies have been included, and

these were small and of poor quality. To improve the

evidence, future trials should address quality issues and focus

on clearly defining and measuring post-operative

complications to allow for better comparison between s tudies.

However due to the introduction of fast track protocols that

already include an early feeding component, future trials may

be challenging. A more feasible trial may be to examine the

effect of differing post-operative ene rgy intake regimens on

relevant outcomes.

Early Enteral Nutrition for Individuals Who Have Severe Head Injury

Proprietary


Yi and colleagues (2019) noted that the role of early enteral

nutrition (EEN) supplemented with probiotics (less than 48

hours) in improving clinical outcomes of patients with severe

head injury (SHI) remains controversial. In a meta-analysis,

these investigators examined the efficacy of EEN

supplemented with probiotics on clinical outcomes in these

patients. Systematic searches were performed in PubMed,

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National

Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang database, and Chinese

Biomedical Literature to identify potential studies; 2

investigators checked citations, extracted data, appraised risk

of bias, and then STATA 12.0 was used to perform statistical

analysis. A total of 18 trials were eventually included in the

present study. Meta-analysis indicated that EEN

supplemented with probiotics was associated with decreased

risk of infection (RR, 0.53; 95 % CI: 0.44 to 0.65), decreased

risk of mortality (RR, 0.56; 95 % CI: 0.38 to 0.82), decreased

risk of GI complications (RR, 0.19;95 % CI: 0.13 to 0.25), and

shortened stays in ICU (MD, -4.55; 96 % CI: -5.91 to -3.19).

The authors concluded that EEN supplemented with probiotics

may be a promising alternative for patients with SHI because it

decreased the risk of infection, mortality, and GI complications,

as well as shortened the stays in ICU. These researches

stated that further large-scale and well-designed studies are

needed to establish this conclusion.

Enteral Nutrition in the Treatment of Eating Disorders

Hale and Logomarsino (2019) stated that EN is frequently

used in the treatment of anorexia nervosa (AN), and less

commonly, bulimia nervosa (BN); yet, no standardized

guidelines for treatment exist at this time. These investigators

examined the efficacy of EN in the treatment of eating

disorders and made recommendations for clinical practice and

future research. They carried out a literature search of 7

databases. The search strategy combined key terms anorexia

nervosa, bulimia, and eating disorders with terms associated

with EN. There were no restrictions on publication date or

Proprietary


language. Studies that assessed the effect of EN on weight

restoration, refeeding syndrome, and binge/purge behaviors in

the treatment of AN and BN were included. Of 73 full-text

articles reviewed, 22 met inclusion criteria; 19 studies reported

that significant short-term weight gain was achieved when EN

was used for re-feeding malnourished AN patients; however,

results varied for the 6 studies reporting on long-term weight

gain, maintenance, and recovery. In studies with a

comparator, no significant differences were found between the

EN and oral re-feeding cohorts regarding GI disturbance, re-

feeding syndrome, or electrolyte abnormalities; 5 studies

examined the effect of EN on binge/purge behaviors,

suggesting that temporary exclusive EN decreased the

frequency and severity of binge/purge episodes. The authors

concluded that although EN is an essential life-saving

treatment in severe cases of AN, it does not guarantee long-

term success or recovery. The results of this systematic

review highlighted the need for prospective controlled trials

with adequate sample sizes to make comparisons between

specific feeding methods, formulations, and defined short- and

long-term outcomes. These researchers stated that evidence-

based standards for clinical practice are needed with specific

guidelines for best results for AN and BN treatment. Level of

Evidence = I.

CPT Codes / HCPCS Codes / ICD-10 Codes

Information in the [brackets] below has been added for clarification purposes. Codes requiring a 7th character are represented by "+":

Code Code Description

CP T codes covered if selection criteria are met:

99507 Home visit for care and maintenance of

catheter(s) (e.g., urinary, drainage, and enteral)

Proprietary


m

99601 Home infusion/specialty drug administration,

per visit (up to 2 hours)

+ 99602 each additional hour (List separately in

addition to code for primary procedure)

Other CPT codes related to the CPB:

36555 -

36571

Insertion of central venous catheter

43246 Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy including

esophagus, stomach, and either the duodenu

and/or jejunum as appropriate; with directed

placement of percutaneous gastrostomy tube

43510 Gastrotomy; with esophageal dilation and

insertion of permanent intraluminal tube (e.g.,

Celestin or Mousseaux-Barbin)

43653 Laparoscopy, surgical; gastrostomy, without

construction of gastric tube (e.g., Stamm

procedure) (separate procedure)

43752 Naso- or oro-gastric tube placement, requiring

physician's skill and fluoroscopic guidance

(includes fluoroscopy, image documentation

and report)

43762 -

43763

Replacement of gastrostomy tube,

percutaneous, includes removal, when

performed, without imaging or endoscopic

guidance

43761 Repositioning of the gastric feeding tube,

through the duodenum for enteric nutrition


Proprietary

43810 -

43832

Gastroduodenostomy, gastrojejunostomy;

without vagotomy, with vagotomy, any type,

gastrostomy, open; without construction of

gastric tube (e.g., Stamm procedure) (separate

procedure), neonatal, for feeding, or with

construction of gastric tube (e.g., Janeway

procedure)

+ 44015 Tube or needle catheter jejunostomy for enteral

alimentation, intraoperative, any method (List

separately in addition to primary procedure)

44372 Small intestinal endoscopy, enteroscopy

beyond second portion of duodenum, not

including ileum; with placement of

percutaneous jejunostomy tube

44373 with conversion of percutaneous gastrostomy

tube to percutaneous jejunostomy tube

44500 Introduction of long gastrointestinal tube (e.g.,

Miller-Abbott) (separate procedure)

49440 Insertion of gastrostomy tube, percutaneous,

under fluoroscopic guidance including contrast

injection(s), image doc umentation and report

49441 Insertion of duodenostomy or jejunostomy tube,

percutaneous, under fluoroscopic guidance

including contrast injection(s), image

documentation and report

49446 Conversion of gastrostomy tube to gastro-

jejunostomy tube, percutaneous, under

fluoroscopic guidance including contrast




Proprietary

49450 Replacement of gastrostomy or cecostomy (or

other colonic) tube, percutaneous, under

fluoroscopic guidance including contrast


49451 Replacement of duodenostomy or jejunostomy

tube, percutaneous, under fluoroscopic

guidance including c ontrast injection(s), image


49452 Replacement of gastro-jejunostomy tube,

percutaneous, under fluoroscopic guidance

including contrast injection(s), image


74340 Introduction of long gastrointestinal tube (eg,

Miller-Abbott), including multiple fluoroscopies

and images, radiological supervision and

interpretation

HCP CS codes covered if selection criteria are met:

B4034

B4083,

B4102

B9999

Enteral and Parenteral Therapy (except food

thickener)

B4087 Gastrostomy/jejunostomy tube, standard, any

material, any type, each

Gastrostomy/jejunostomy tube, low-profile, any B4088

material, any type, each

Enteral formula, for adults, used to replace

fluids and electrolytes (e.g., clear liquids), 500

B4102

ml= 1 unit

Enteral formula, for pediatrics, used to replace

fluids and electrolytes (e.g., clear liquids), 500

ml = 1 unit

B4103



Proprietary

B4104 Additive for enteral formula (e.g., fiber)

B4105 In-line cartridge containing di gestive enz yme(s)

for enteral feeding, each

B4149 Enteral formula, manufactured blenderized

natural foods with intact nutrients, includes

proteins, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins and

minerals, may include fiber, administered

through an enteral feeding tube, 100 calories =

1 unit

S5497 Home infusion therapy, catheter care/

maintenance, not otherwise classified; includes

administrative services, professional pharmacy

services, care coordination, and all necessary

supplies and equipment (drugs and nursing

visits coded separately), per diem


maintenance, simple (single lumen), includes



supplies and equipment (drugs and nursing


S 5501 Home infusion therapy, catheter care/

maintenance, complex (more than one lumen),

includes administrative services, professional

pharmacy services, care coordination, and all

necessary supplies and equipment (drugs and

nursing visits coded separately), per diem



Proprietary


maintenance, implanted access device,

includes administrative services, professional


necessary supplies and equipment (drugs and

nursing visits coded separately), per diem (use

this code for interim maintenance of vascular

access not currently in use)

S5517 Home infusion therapy, all supplies necessary

for restoration of catheter patency or declotting

S5518 Home infusion therapy, all supplies necessary

for catheter repair

S5520 Home infusion therapy, all supplies (including

catheter) necessary for a peripherally inserted

central venous catheter (PICC) line insertion

S5521 Home infusion therapy, all supplies (including

catheter) necessary for a midline catheter

insertion

S5522 Home infusion therapy, insertion of peripherally

inserted central venous catheter (PICC),

nursing services only (no supplies or catheter

included)

S5523 Home infusion therapy, insertion of midline

central catheter, nursing services only (no

supplies or catheter included)

S9342 Home therapy; enteral nutrition via pump;



supplies and equipment (enteral formula and




Proprietary

S9343 Home therapy; enteral nutrition via bolus;



supplies and equipment (enteral formula and


S9364 Home infusion therapy, total parenteral nutrition

(TPN); administrative services, professional


necessary supplies and equipment including

standard TPN formula (lipids, specialty amino

acid formulas, drugs other than in standard

formula and nursing visits coded separately),

per diem


(TPN); 1 liter per day, administrative services,

professional pharmacy se rvices, care

coordination, and all necessary supplies and

equipment including standard TPN formula

(lipids, specialty amino ac id formulas, drugs

other than in standard formula and nur sing



(TPN); more than 1 liter but no more than 2

liters per day, administrative services,









Proprietary


(TPN); more than 2 liters but no more than 3

liters per day, administrative services,








(TPN); more than 3 liters per day,



supplies and equipment including standard

TPN formula (lipids, specialty amino ac id

formulas, drugs other than in standard formula

and nursing visits coded separately), per diem

HCPCS codes not cov ered for indications listed in the CPB:

A9152 Single vitamin/mineral/trace element, oral, per

dose, not otherwise specified

A9153 Multiple vitamins, with or without minerals and

trace elements, oral, per dose, not otherwise

specified

B4100 Food thickener, administered orally, per oz

O ther HCPCS codes related to the CPB:

S9123 Nursing care, in the home; by registered nurse,

per hour (use for general nursing care only, not

to be used when CPT codes 99500-99600 can

be used)

S9124 Nursing care, in the home; by licensed practical

nurse, per hour



Proprietary

S9433 Medical food nutritionally complete,

administered orally, providing 100% of

nutritional intake

S9434 Modified solid food supplements for inborn

errors of metabolism

S9435 Medical foods for inborn errors of metabolism

S9810 Home therapy; professional pharmacy services

for provision of infusion, specialty drug

administration, and / or disease state

management, not otherwise classified, per hour

(do not use this code with any per diem code)

ICD-10 codes covered if selection criteria are met (not all inclusive):

C00.0 -

C 21.8

Malignant neoplasm of lip, oral cavity, pharynx,

esophagus, stomach, small intestine, colon,

rectosigmoid j unction, rectum, anus and anal

canal

C 76.0 Malignant neoplasm of head, face and neck

E40, E41,

E42, E43

Kwashiorkor, nutritional marasmus, marasmic

kwashiokor and unspecified severe protein-

calorie malnutrition

E44.0 -

E 44.1

Protein-calorie malnutrition of moderate and

mild degree

E45 Retarded development following protein-calorie

malnutrition

E46 Unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition

E84.0 -

E84.9

Cystic fibrosis



Proprietary

I69.091

I69.191

I69.291

I69.391

I69.891

I69.991

Sequelae of cerebrovascular disease

[dysphagia]

K22.4 Dyskinesia of esophagus

O21.0 Mild hyperemesis gravidarum

O21.1 Hyperemesis gravidarum with metabolic

disturbance

O21.2 Late vomiting of pregnancy

O21.8 Other vomiting complicating pregnancy

O21.9 Vomiting of pregnancy, unspecified

R13.0 -

R13.19

Aphagia and dysphagia

Z93.1 Gastrostomy status

Z93.4 Other artificial openings of gastrointestinal tract

status

ICD-10 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB: F01.50

F80.2

F80.4

F84.0

F84.3

F99

Mental and behavioral disorders

K50.00 -

K50.919

Crohn's disease

N17.0 -

N19

Acute kidney failure and chronic kidney disease



Proprietary

Z99.2 Dependence on renal dialysis



The above policy is based on the following references:

1. Ainsworth SB, Clerihew L, McGuire W. Percutaneous

central venous catheters versus peripheral cannulae

for delivery of parenteral nutrition in neonates.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(3):CD004219.

2. Akobeng AK, Zhang D, Gordon M, MacDonald JK.

Enteral nutrition for maintenance of remission in

Crohn's disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.

2018;8:CD005984.

3. Alkaade S, Vareedayah AA. Primer on exocrine

pancreatic insufficiency, fat malabsorption, and fatty

acid abnormalities. Am J Manag Care. 2017;23(12

Suppl):S203-S209.

4. Al-Omran M, Albalawi ZH, Tashkandi MF, Al-Ansary LA.

Enteral versus parenteral nutrition for acute

pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;

(1):CD002837.

5. Al-Omran M, Groof A, Wilke D. Enteral versus

parenteral nutrition for acute pancreatitis. Cochrane

Database Syst Rev. 2003;(1):CD002837.

6. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on

Nutrition. Reimbursement for medical foods for

inborn errors of metabolism. Pediatrics. 1994;93

(5):860.

7. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology

(ACOG). ACOG Practice Bulletin: Nausea and vomiting

of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(4):803-814.

8. American Gastroenterological Association. American

Gastroenterological Association medical position

Proprietary


statement: Parenteral nutrition. Gastroenterology.

2001;121(4):966-969.

9. Anderson AD, Palmer D, MacFie J. Peripheral

parenteral nutrition. Br J Surg. 2003;90(9):1048-1054.

10. Anderson CF, MacBurney MM. Application of A.S.P.E.N.

clinical guidelines: Parenteral nutrition use at a

university hospital and development of a practice

guideline algorithm. Nutr Clin Pract. 1996;11(2):53-58.

11. Anker SD, John M, Pedersen PU, et al; German Society

for Nutritional Medicine (DGEM); Becker HF, Bohm M,

Brunkhorst FM, Vogelmeier C; European Society for

Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN). ESPEN

Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition: Cardiology and

pulmonology. Clin Nutr. 2006;25(2):311-318.

12. Arends J, Bodoky G, Bozzetti F, et al; German Society

for Nutritional Medicine (DGEM); Zurcher G, Fietkau R,

Aulbert E, et al; European Society for Parenteral and

Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN). ESPEN Guidelines on Enteral

Nutrition: Non-surgical oncology. Clin Nutr. 2006;25

(2):245-259.

13. Avenell A, Handoll HH. Nutritional supplementation for

hip fracture aftercare in the elderly. Cochrane


14. Bombell S, McGuire W. Early trophic feeding for very

low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.

2009;(3):CD000504.

15. Bombell S, McGuire W. Early versus delayed initiation

of progressive enteral feedings for parenterally fed

low birth weight or preterm infants. Cochrane


16. Boullata JI, Clarke JL, Stone A, et al. Optimizing clinical

and cost outcomes for patients on enteral nutrition

support for treatment of exocrine pancreatic

insufficiency: Proceedings from an expert advisory

board meeting. Popul Health Manag. 2019;22(S1):S1

S10.

Proprietary


17. Cabre Gelada E. Enteral nutrition in gastrointestinal

disease. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1998;21(5):245-256.

18. Cano N, Fiaccadori E, Tesinsky P, et al; German Society

for Nutritional Medicine (DGEM); Kuhlmann M, Mann

H, Horl WH; European Society for Parenteral and


Nutrition: Adult renal failure. Clin Nutr. 2006;25(2):295

310.

19. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

Enteral and parenteral nutrition therapy covered as

prosthetic device. Medicare Coverage Issues Manual

Section 65-10. Baltimore, MD: CMS; effective July 11,

1984.

20. Conway SP, Morton A, Wolfe S. Enteral tube feeding for

cystic fibrosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;

(2):CD001198.

21. DeWitt RC, Kudsk KA. Enteral nutrition. Gastroenterol

Clin North Am. 1998;27(2):371-386.

22. Dhaliwal R, Jurewitsch B, Harrietha D, Heyland DK.

Combination enteral and parenteral nutrition in

critically ill patients: Harmful or beneficial? A

systematic review of the evidence. Intensive Care Med.

2004;30(8):1666-1671.

23. Dominguez-Cherit G, Borunda D, Rivero-Sigarroa E.

Total parenteral nutrition. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2002;8

(4):285-289.

24. Elia M, Ceriello A, Laube H, et al. Enteral nutritional

support and use of diabetes-specific formulas for

patients with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-

analysis. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(9):2267-2279.

25. Fasano A, Berti I, Gerarduzzi T, et al. Prevalence of

celiac disease in at-risk and not-at-risk groups in the

United States: A large multicenter study. Arch Intern

Med. 2003;163(3):286-292.

26. Ferreira IM, Brooks D, Lacasse Y, et al. Nutritional

supplementation for stable chronic obstructive

Proprietary


pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.

2005;(2):CD000998.

27. Finestone HM, Greene-Finestone LS. Rehabilitation

medicine: 2. Diagnosis of dysphagia and its nutritional

management for stroke patients. CMAJ. 2003;169

(10):1041-1044.

28. Fonseca BK, Holdgate A, Craig JC. Enteral vs

intravenous rehydration therapy for children with

gastroenteritis: A meta-analysis of randomized

controlled trials. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158

(5):483-490.

29. Forbes A, Escher J, Hébuterne X, et al. ESPEN guideline:

Clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease. Clin

Nutr. 2017;36(2):321-347.

30. Foulks CJ. An evidence-based evaluation of intradialytic

parenteral nutrition. Am J Kidney Dis. 1999;33(1):186

192.

31. Freedman S, Orenstein D, Black P, et al. Increased fat

absorption from enteral formula through an in-line

digestive cartridge in patients with cystic fibrosis. J

Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2017;65(1):97-101.

32. Freedman SD, Wyatt C, Stevens J, et al. Absorption and

safety with sustained use of Relizorb evaluation

(ASSURE) study in patients with cystic fibrosis receiving

enteral feeding. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2018;67

(4):527-532.

33. Freedman SD. Options for addressing exocrine

pancreatic insufficiency in patients receiving enteral

nutrition supplementation. Am J Manag Care. 2017;23

(12 Suppl):S220-S228.

34. Ganapathy V, Hay JW, Kim JH. Costs of necrotizing

enterocolitis and cost-effectiveness of exclusively

human milk-based products in feeding extremely

premature infants. Breastfeed Med. 2012;7(1):29-37.

35. Giguere-Rich C, et al. Use of an in-line digestive

cartridge with enteral nutrition improves the weight

trajectory of 2 children with cystic fibrosis complicated

Proprietary


by another medical diagnosis. Nutr Clinical Pract.

2018;33(2): 286-294

36. Goff K. Enteral and parenteral nutrition transitioning

from hospital to home. Nurs Case Manag. 1998;3

(2):67-74.

37. Guillou PJ. Enteral versus parenteral nutrition in acute

pancreatitis. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin

Gastroenterol. 1999;13(2):345-355.

38. Hale MD, Logomarsino JV. The use of enteral nutrition

in the treatment of eating disorders: A systematic

review. Eat Weight Disord. 2019;24(2):179-198.

39. Herbert G, Perry R, Andersen HK, et al. Early enteral

nutrition within 24 hours of lower gastrointestinal

surgery versus later commencement for length of

hospital stay and postoperative complications.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;7:CD004080.

40. Heyland DK. Enteral and parenteral nutrition in the

seriously ill, hospitalized patient: A critical review of

the evidence. J Nutr Health Aging. 2000;4(1):31-41.

41. Heyland DK. Nutritional support in the critically ill

patients. A critical review of the evidence. Crit Care

Clin. 1998;14(3):423-440.

42. Hotta SS. Intradialytic parenteral nutrition for

hemodialysis patients. Health Technology Review No.

6. AHCPR Pub. No. 93-0068. Rockville, MD: Agency for

Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ); August

1993:4.

43. Howard L, Ashley C. Nutrition in the perioperative

patient. Annu Rev Nutr. 2003;23:263-282.

44. Howard L, Hassan N. Home parenteral nutrition. 25

years later. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 1998;27

(2):481-512.

45. Howard L, Patton L, Dahl RS. Outcome of long-term

enteral feeding. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 1998;8

(3):705-722.

46. Huckleberry Y. Nutritional support and the surgical

patient. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2004;61(7):671-682

Proprietary


47. Ignoffo RJ. Parenteral nutrition support in patients with

cancer. Pharmacotherapy. 1992;12(4):353-357.

48. Ireton-Jones CS, Stiller DL. Evaluation of outcomes for

patients with AIDS receiving home total parenteral

nutrition. Nutrition. 1998;14(9):731-735.

49. Jones L, Watling RM, Wilkins S, Pizer B. Nutritional

support in children and young people with cancer

undergoing chemotherapy. Cochrane Database Syst

Rev. 2010;(7):CD003298.

50. Koretz RL, Avenell A, Lipman TO, et al. Does enteral

nutrition affect clinical outcome? A systematic review

of the randomized trials. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102

(2):412-429.

51. Kreymann KG, Berger MM, Deutz NE, et al; German

Society for Nutritional Medicine (DGEM); Ebner C, Hartl

W, Heymann C, Spies C; European Society for


Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition: Intensive care. Clin

Nutr. 2006;25(2):210-223.

52. Lochs H, Dejong C, Hammarqvist F, et al; German

Society for Nutritional Medicine (DGEM); Lubke H,

Bischoff S, Engelmann N, Thul P; European Society for


Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition: Gastroenterology. Clin

Nutr. 2006;25(2):260-274.

53. Lohr JM, Dominguez-Munoz E, Rosendahl J, et al.;

HaPanEU/UEG Working Group. United European

Gastroenterology evidence-based guidelines for the

diagnosis and therapy of chronic pancreatitis

54. (HaPanEU). United European Gastroenterol J. 2017;5

(2):153-199.

55. MacFie J. Enteral versus parenteral nutrition. Br J Surg.

2000;87(9):1121-1122.

56. Maldonado J, Gil A, Narbona E, Molina JA. Special

formulas in infant nutrition: A review. Early Hum Dev.

1998;53 Suppl:S23-S32.

Proprietary


57. Marik PE, Zaloga GP. Meta-analysis of parenteral

nutrition versus enteral nutrition in patients with acute

pancreatitis. BMJ. 2004;328(7453):1407.

58. Mazaki T, Ebisawa K. Enteral versus parenteral

nutrition after gastrointestinal surgery: A systematic

review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled

trials in the English literature. J Gastrointest Surg.

2008;12(4):739-755.

59. McGeer AJ, Detsky AS, O'Rourke K. Parenteral nutrition

in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy - American

College of Physicians Position Paper. Ann Intern

Med.1989;110(9):734-736.

60. Medscape, LLC. FDA clears Relizorb for use with

enteral tube feedings. Medscape, LLC. New York, NY.

December 03, 2015. Available at:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/855434.

Accessed March 23, 2016.

61. Meier R, Ockenga J, Pertkiewicz M, et al; German

Society for Nutritional Medicine (DGEM); Loser C, Keim

V; European Society for Parenteral and Enteral

Nutrition (ESPEN). ESPEN Guidelines on Enteral

Nutrition: Pancreas. Clin Nutr. 2006;25(2):275-284.

62. Miller RG, Jackson CE, Kasarskis EJ, et al; Quality

Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of

Neurology. Practice parameter update: The care of the

patient with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: Drug,

nutritional, and respiratory therapies (an evidence-

based review): Report of the Quality Standards

Subcommittee of the American Academy of

Neurology. Neurology. 2009;73(15):1218-1226.

63. Narula N, Dhillon A, Zhang D, et al. Enteral nutritional

therapy for induction of remission in Crohn's disease.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;4:CD000542.

64. National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Library of

Medicine. Total protein. MedlinePlus Medical

Encyclopedia. Bethesda, MD: NIH; updated August 18,

2003. Available at:

Proprietary

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/855434


http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003483.htm.

Accessed October 29, 2004.

65. National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Library of

Medicine. Albumin -- serum. MedlinePlus Medical

Encyclopedia. Bethesda, MD: NIH; updated April 29,

2003. Available at:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003480.htm.

Accessed October 29, 2004.

66. National Kidney Foundation (NKF). I. Adult Guidelines.

A. Maintenance Dialysis. 4. Nutrition Counseling and

Follow-up. NKF K/DOQI Guidelines 2000. New York, NY:

NKF; 2001.

67. Nguyen DL. Guidance for supplemental enteral

nutrition across patient populations. Am J Manag Care.

2017;23(12 Suppl):S210-S219.

68. Ockenga J, Grimble R, Jonkers-Schuitema C, et al;

German Society for Nutritional Medicine (DGEM);

Suttmann U; European Society for Parenteral and


Nutrition: Wasting in HIV and other chronic infectious

diseases. Clin Nutr. 2006 Apr;25(2):319-329.

69. Plauth M, Cabré E, Campillo B, et al. ESPEN Guidelines

on Parenteral Nutrition: Hepatology. Clin Nutr. 2009;28

(4):436-444.

70. Plauth M, Cabre E, Riggio O, et al; German Society for

Nutritional Medicine (DGEM); Ferenci P, Holm E, Vom

Dahl S, et al; European Society for Parenteral and


Nutrition: Liver disease. Clin Nutr. 2006;25(2):285-294.

71. Quigley M, Embleton ND, McGuire W. Formula versus

donor breast milk for feeding preterm or low birth

weight infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.

2018;6:CD002971.

72. Reilly H. Parenteral nutrition: An overview of current

practice. Br J Nurs. 1998;7(8):461-467.

Proprietary

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003483.htm

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003480.htm


73. Richards DM, Deeks JJ, Sheldon TA, Shaffer JL. Home

parenteral nutrition: A systemic review. Health Technol

Assess. 1997;1(1):1-59.

74. Rock CL, Doyle C, Demark-Wahnefried W, et al.

Nutrition and physical activity guidelines for cancer

survivors. CA Cancer J Clin 2012;62(4):242-274.

75. Salvioli GP, Faldella G, Alessandroni R, et al. Prevention

of allergies of infants: Breast-feeding and special

formulas. Influence on the response to immunization.

Acta Biomed Ateneo Parmense. 1997;68 Suppl 1:21-27.

76. Schwarzenberg SJ, Borowitz D, et al. Challenging

barriers to an option for improved provision of enteral

nutrition. J Cyst Fibros. 2019l;18(4):447-449.

77. Schwarzenberg SJ, Hempstead SE, McDonald CM, et al.

Enteral tube feeding for individuals with cystic fibrosis:

Cystic Fibrosis Foundation evidence-informed

guidelines. J Cyst Fibros. 2016;15(6):724-735.

78. Scrimshaw NS, Murray EB. The acceptability of milk

and milk products in populations with a high

prevalence of lactose intolerance. Am J Clin Nutr.

1988;48(4 Suppl):1079-1159.

79. Sleigh G, Brocklehurst P. Gastrostomy feeding in

cerebral palsy: A systematic review. Arch Dis Child.

2004;89(6):534-539.

80. Song J, Zhong Y, Lu X, et al. Enteral nutrition provided

within 48 hours after admission in severe acute

pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(34):e11871.

81. Sriram K, Meguid RA, Meguid MM. Nutritional support

in adults with chyle leaks. Nutrition. 2016;32(2):281

286.

82. Staun M, Pironi L, Bozzetti F, et al. ESPEN Guidelines on

Parenteral Nutrition: Home parenteral nutrition (HPN)

in adult patients. Clin Nutr. 2009;28(4):467-479.

83. Stevens JC, et al. Absorption and safety with sustained

use of RELiZORB evaluation (ASSURE) study in patients

Proprietary


with cystic fibrosis receiving enteral feeding. J Pediatr

Gastroenterol Nutr. 2018;67:527-532.

84. Sullivan S, Schanler RJ, Kim JH, et al. An exclusively

human milk-based diet is associated with a lower rate

of necrotizing enterocolitis than a diet of human milk

and bovine milk-based products. J Pediatr. 2010;156

(4):562-567.

85. The Veterans Affairs Total Parenteral Nutrition

Cooperative Study Group. Perioperative total

parenteral nutrition in surgical patients. N Engl J Med.

1991;325(8):525-532.

86. Tricenturion LLC. 18.1 Enteral nutrition. Medicare Local

Medical Review Policy. Durable Medical Equipment

Regional Carrier (DMERC) Regions A and B. Columbia,

SC: Tricenturion; effective April 1, 2002.

87. Tricenturion LLC. 18.2 Parenteral nutrition. Medicare

Local Medical Review Policy. Durable Medical

Equipment Regional Carrier (DMERC) Regions A and B.

Columbia, SC: Tricenturion; effective July 1, 1996.

88. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Relizorb enzyme

packed cartridge. 510(k) No. K163057 (traditional).

Silver Spring, MD: FDA; July 12, 2017.

89. van der Haak N, Kench A. Pancreatic enzyme

replacement therapy. In: Saxby N, Painter C, Kench A,

et al. and the Australian and New Zealand Cystic

Fibrosis Nutrition Guideline Authorship Group.

Nutrition Guidelines for Cystic Fibrosis in Australia and

New Zealand. SC Bell, ed. Ch. 10. Sydney, NSW:

Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand; August

2017.

90. Volkert D, Berner YN, Berry E, et al; German Society for

Nutritional Medicine (DGEM); Lenzen-Grossimlinghaus

R, Krys U, Pirlich M, et al; European Society for


Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition. Geriatrics. Clin Nutr.

2006;25(2):330-360.

Proprietary


91. Wasiak J, Cleland H, Jeffery R. Early versus delayed

enteral nutrition support for burn injuries. Cochrane


92. Weimann A, Braga M, Harsanyi L, et al; German Society

for Nutritional Medicine (DGEM); Jauch KW, Kemen M,

Hiesmayr JM, et al; European Society for Parenteral

and Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN). ESPEN Guidelines on

Enteral Nutrition: Surgery including organ

transplantation. Clin Nutr. 2006;25(2):224-244.

93. Yamamoto J, Hayashi T, Izumisawa Y, et al. Clinical

experience of nutritional support in patients treated

with chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced

esophageal cancer. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 2015;42

(10):1246-1248.

94. Yi LJ, Tian X, Shi B, et al. Early enteral nutrition

supplemented with probiotics improved the clinical

outcomes in severe head injury: Some promising

findings from Chinese patients. Medicine (Baltimore).

2019;98(17):e15426.

95. Zachos M, Tondeur M, Griffiths AM. Enteral nutritional

therapy for induction of remission in Crohn's disease.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(1):CD000542.

Proprietary


Copyright Aetna Inc. All rights reserved. Clinical Policy Bulletins are developed by Aetna to assist in administering plan

benefits and constitute neither offers of coverage nor medical advice. This Clinical Policy Bulletin contains only a partial,

general description of plan or program benefits and does not constitute a contract. Aetna does not provide health care

services and, therefore, cannot guarantee any results or outcomes. Participating providers are independent contractors

in private practice and are neither employees nor agents of Aetna or its affiliates. Treating providers are solely

responsible for medical advice and treatment of members. This Clinical Policy Bulletin may be updated and therefore is

subject to change.

Copyright © 2001-2020 Aetna Inc.

Proprietary

AETNA BETTER HEALTH® OF PENNSYLVANIA

Amendment to Aetna Clinical Policy Bulletin Number: 0061 Nutritional

Support

Special medical foods are used for the treatment of inborn errors of metabolism (histidinemia, homocystinuria, maple syrup urine disease [MSUD], phenylketonuria [PKU], and tyrosinemia). The special oral formulas are designed to restrict intake of one or more amino acids. These are covered under the Pennsylvania Medical assistance plan.

Breast milk additive to prevent necrotizing enterocolitis in premature infants is covered under the Pennsylvania Medical assistance plan if administered via the tube-feeding route or by mouth. Human donor breast milk is covered for the Pennsylvania Medical assistance plan. The following benefit information does not apply to Medicaid. Regular food products are not considered medical items. Regular food products include food thickeners, baby food, gluten-free food products, high protein powders and mixes, low carbohydrate diets, normal grocery items, nutritional supplement puddings, weight-loss foods and formula (products to aid weight loss), or other regular grocery products that can be mixed in blenders and used with an enteral system regardless of whether these regular food products are taken orally or parenterally.

The Pennsylvania Medical Assistance Program covers most medically necessary services. Please contact Aetna Better Health Member Service at 1-866-638-1232 to determine the member’s benefit plan.

www.aetnabetterhealth.com/pennsylvania revised 05/28/2020

PProroppririeettaaryry

http://www.aetnabetterhealth.com/pennsylvania

aetna better health | medicaid health plans - prior authorization … · 2020-02-24 · prior...

Documents