Nutrition Society Symposium on ‘End points in clinical nutrition trials’ Death, morbidity and economics are the only end points for trials

Concordance between changes in calf circumference and muscle mass exists: A narrative literature review

Technological methods such as BIA or DXA are not always accessible in clinical practice, thus GLIM supports the use of calf circumference measurements to examine muscle mass. However, it has not been described if measurements of calf circumference can detect a change in muscle mass to the same degree as the technological methods. The aim of this study was to assess, whether changes in calf circumference can be used as a valid proxy for changes in muscle mass. 10 studies including measurements of muscle mass by calf circumference and technological methods at baseline and follow-up were identified through a narrative literature review. Results were used to determine concordance between measurements. Predominantly concordance between changes in calf circumference and muscle mass assessed by BIA or DXA was reviled. However, the results were not uniform for hospitalized patients or older adults as groups. Thus, uncertainty whether changes in calf circumference can be used as a valid proxy for changes in muscle mass in these groups still exist.

ESPEN guideline on nutritional support for polymorbid medical inpatients

BACKGROUND

Disease-related malnutrition in polymorbid medical inpatients is a highly prevalent syndrome associated with significantly increased morbidity, disability, short- and long-term mortality, impaired recovery from illness, and cost of care.

AIM

As there are uncertainties in applying disease-specific guidelines to patients with multiple conditions, our aim was to provide evidence-based recommendations on nutritional support for the polymorbid patient population hospitalized in medical wards.

METHODS

This update adheres to the standard operating procedures for ESPEN guidelines. We did a systematic literature search for 15 clinical questions in three different databases (Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library), as well as in secondary sources (e.g. published guidelines), until July 12th. Retrieved abstracts were screened to identify relevant studies that were used to develop recommendations (incl. SIGN grading), which was followed by submission to Delphi voting.

RESULTS

From a total of 3527 retrieved abstracts, 60 new relevant studies were analyzed and used to generate a guideline draft that proposed 32 recommendations (7x A, 11x B, 10x O and 4x GPP), which encompass different aspects of nutritional support including indication, route of feeding, energy and protein requirements, micronutrient requirements, disease-specific nutrients, timing, monitoring and procedure of intervention. The results of the first online voting showed a strong consensus (agreement of >90%) on 100% of the recommendations. Therefore, no final consensus conference was needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent high-quality trials have provided increasing evidence that nutritional support can reduce morbidity and other complications associated with malnutrition in polymorbid patients. The timely screening of patients for risk of malnutrition at hospital admission followed by individualized nutritional support interventions for at-risk patients should be part of routine clinical care and multimodal treatment in hospitals worldwide. Use of this updated guideline offers an evidence-based nutritional approach to the polymorbid medical inpatients and may improve their outcomes.

Associations between early parenteral nutrition and in-hospital outcomes in underweight patients with gastrointestinal surgery

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Guidelines recommend early parenteral nutrition for malnourished patients. However, the effectiveness of early parenteral nutrition in underweight patients has not been established. This study aimed to determine whether in-hospital outcomes were associated with early parenteral nutrition in underweight gastrointestinal surgery patients with short-term contraindications to early enteral nutrition.

METHODS

We identified underweight adult gastrointestinal surgery patients with short-term contraindications to early enteral nutrition using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database from July 2010 to March 2018. We performed propensity-score overlap weighting to compare in-hospital outcomes between patients with and without early parenteral nutrition. The primary outcome was length of hospital stay. The secondary outcomes were total hospitalization cost, hospital-acquired pneumonia, hospital-acquired urinary tract infection, central line-associated bloodstream infection, and all-cause 28-day in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

We identified 31,898 eligible patients. Early parenteral nutrition was associated with longer hospital stay (19.2 vs. 18.4 days; difference, 0.7 days; 95% CI, 0.1 to 1.4). There were no differences between the patients with and without early parenteral nutrition in total hospitalization cost (difference, US$60; 95% CI, -277 to 397), hospital-acquired pneumonia (risk difference, -0.11%; 95% CI, -0.78 to 0.55), hospital-acquired urinary tract infection (risk difference, 0.03%; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.14), central line-associated bloodstream infection (risk difference, 0.08%; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.18), and all-cause 28-day in-hospital mortality (risk difference, 0.31%; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.69).

CONCLUSIONS

Early parenteral nutrition for underweight gastrointestinal surgery patients with short-term contraindications to early enteral nutrition was associated with longer hospital stay.

Quantifying Response to Nutrition Therapy During Critical Illness: Implications for Clinical Practice and Research? A Narrative Review

Critical illness causes substantial muscle loss that adversely impacts recovery and health-related quality of life. Treatments are therefore needed that reduce mortality and/or improve the quality of survivorship. The purpose of this Review is to describe both patient-centered and surrogate outcomes that quantify responses to nutrition therapy in critically ill patients. The use of these outcomes in randomized clinical trials will be described and the strengths and limitations of these outcomes detailed. Outcomes used to quantify the response of nutrition therapy must have a plausible mechanistic relationship to nutrition therapy and either be an accepted measure for the quality of survivorship or highly likely to lead to improvements in survivorship. This Review identified that previous trials have utilized diverse outcomes. The variety of outcomes observed is probably due to a lack of consensus as to the most appropriate surrogate outcomes to quantify response to nutrition therapy during research or clinical practice. Recent studies have used, with some success, measures of muscle mass to evaluate and monitor nutrition interventions administered to critically ill patients.

Assessing the Evidence in Evidence-Based Medicine

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has become a fixture in today's medical practice. Evidence consists of memorialized observations and should be contrasted with dogmatic pronouncements and/or hypotheses. Evidence has varying degrees of reliability. The randomized clinical trial (RCT) or a systematic review of RCTs is accorded the highest level of credibility and expert opinion the lowest. This ranking reflects the internal validity (degree to which factors in the study interfere with the gathering or interpretation of the observations) of the study design; more valid designs are more credible. The provision of healthcare requires an almost constant assessment of evidence. In so doing, there are a number of principles of EBM that need to be kept in mind: Association can never prove causation. Various methodologic biases can influence conclusions made in both RCTs and observational studies. The strength of RCTs is in the elimination of confounding bias. Surrogate outcomes must be validated in RCTs assessing how they are changed compared with the clinical outcomes. Subgroup analyses cannot prove hypotheses although they can generate them. P < 0.05 is not the same as truth. Type I errors are more likely to occur when multiple analyses are performed, when trials are prematurely stopped for perceived benefit when there was no a priori plan to do so, or in small papers with dramatic results that are selectively published. The failure to find a difference does not mean that no difference exists (type II error).

ESPEN guidelines on nutritional support for polymorbid internal medicine patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Polymorbidity (also known as multimorbidity) - defined as the co-occurrence of at least two chronic health conditions - is highly prevalent, particularly in the hospitalized population. Nonetheless, clinical guidelines largely address individual diseases and rarely account for polymorbidity. The aim of this project was to develop guidelines on nutritional support for polymorbid patients hospitalized in medical wards.

METHODS

The methodology used for the development of the current project follows the standard operating procedures for ESPEN guidelines. It started with an initial meeting of the Working Group in January 2015, where twelve key clinical questions were developed that encompassed different aspects of nutritional support: indication, route of feeding, energy and protein requirements, micronutrient requirements, disease-specific nutrients, timing, monitoring and procedure of intervention. Systematic literature searches were conducted in three different databases (Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library), as well as in secondary sources (e.g. published guidelines), until April 2016. Retrieved abstracts were screened to identify relevant studies that were used to develop recommendations, which were followed by submission to Delphi voting rounds.

RESULTS

From a total of 4532 retrieved abstracts, 38 relevant studies were analyzed and used to generate a guideline draft that proposed 22 recommendations and four statements. The results of the first online voting showed a strong consensus (agreement of >90%) in 68% of recommendations and 75% of statements, and consensus (agreement of >75-90%) in 32% of recommendations and 25% of statements. At the final consensus conference, a consensus greater than 89% was reached for all of the recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the methodological difficulties in creating non-disease specific guidelines, the evidence behind several important aspects of nutritional support for polymorbid medical inpatients was reviewed and summarized into practical clinical recommendations. Use of these guidelines offer an evidence-based nutritional approach to the polymorbid medical inpatient and may improve their outcomes.

The effect of nutrition training for health care staff on learner and patient outcomes in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Nutrition training for health care staff has been prioritized internationally as a key means of tackling malnutrition; however, there is a lack of clear evidence to support its implementation. Systematic reviews in other fields of training for health care staff indicate that training strategies may have a beneficial impact on learner and patient outcomes.Objectives: We assessed whether nutrition training for health care staff caring for nutritionally vulnerable adults resulted in improved learner and patient outcomes and evaluated the effectiveness of different training strategies.Design: A systematic review of trials of nutrition training for health care staff was conducted. Six databases were searched with key terms relating to malnutrition and nutrition training. Studies were categorized according to cognitive (didactic teaching), behavioral (practical implementation of skills), and psychological (individualized or group feedback and reflection) training strategies. Where sufficient data were available, meta-analysis was performed according to study design and training strategy. All study designs were eligible. The risk of bias was evaluated in accordance with Cochrane guidance.Results: Twenty-four studies met the eligibility criteria: 1 randomized controlled trial, 4 nonrandomized controlled trials, 3 quasi-experimental trials, 13 longitudinal pre-post trials, 2 qualitative studies, and 1 cross-sectional survey. Results from a number of low-quality studies suggest that nutrition training for health care staff may have a beneficial effect on staff nutrition knowledge, practice, and attitude as well as patient nutritional intake. There were insufficient data to determine whether any particular training strategy was more effective than the others.Conclusions: In the absence of high-quality evidence, low-quality studies suggest that nutrition training for health care staff has some positive effects. However, further randomized controlled trials are required to confirm overall efficacy and to explore the impact of training strategies on learner and patient outcomes.

Management of Parenteral Nutrition in Hospitalized Adult Patients [Formula: see text]

Despite the high prevalence of malnutrition in adult hospitalized patients, surveys continue to report that many clinicians are undertrained in clinical nutrition, making targeted nutrition education for clinicians essential for best patient care. Clinical practice models also continue to evolve, with more disciplines prescribing parenteral nutrition (PN) or managing the cases of patients who are receiving it, further adding to the need for proficiency in general PN skills. This tutorial focuses on the daily management of adult hospitalized patients already receiving PN and reviews the following topics: (1) PN basics, including the determination of energy and volume requirements; (2) PN macronutrient content (protein, dextrose, and intravenous fat emulsion); (3) PN micronutrient content (electrolytes, minerals, vitamins, and trace elements); (4) alteration of PN for special situations, such as obesity, hyperglycemia, hypertriglyceridemia, refeeding, and hepatic/renal disease; (5) daily monitoring and adjustment of PN formula; and (6) PN-related complications (PN-associated liver disease and catheter-related complications).

Nutritional support for critically ill children

BACKGROUND

Nutritional support in the critically ill child has not been well investigated and is a controversial topic within paediatric intensive care. There are no clear guidelines as to the best form or timing of nutrition in critically ill infants and children. This is an update of a review that was originally published in 2009. .

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the impact of enteral and parenteral nutrition given in the first week of illness on clinically important outcomes in critically ill children. There were two primary hypotheses:1. the mortality rate of critically ill children fed enterally or parenterally is different to that of children who are given no nutrition;2. the mortality rate of critically ill children fed enterally is different to that of children fed parenterally.We planned to conduct subgroup analyses, pending available data, to examine whether the treatment effect was altered by:a. age (infants less than one year versus children greater than or equal to one year old);b. type of patient (medical, where purpose of admission to intensive care unit (ICU) is for medical illness (without surgical intervention immediately prior to admission), versus surgical, where purpose of admission to ICU is for postoperative care or care after trauma).We also proposed the following secondary hypotheses (a priori), pending other clinical trials becoming available, to examine nutrition more distinctly:3. the mortality rate is different in children who are given enteral nutrition alone versus enteral and parenteral combined;4. the mortality rate is different in children who are given both enteral feeds and parenteral nutrition versus no nutrition.

SEARCH METHODS

In this updated review we searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to February 2016); Ovid EMBASE (1988 to February 2016); OVID Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews; ISI Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded (1965 to February 2016); WebSPIRS Biological Abstracts (1969 to February 2016); and WebSPIRS CAB Abstracts (1972 to February 2016). We also searched trial registries, reviewed reference lists of all potentially relevant studies, handsearched relevant conference proceedings, and contacted experts in the area and manufacturers of enteral and parenteral nutrition products. We did not limit the search by language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies if they were randomized controlled trials; involved paediatric patients, aged one day to 18 years of age, who were cared for in a paediatric intensive care unit setting (PICU) and had received nutrition within the first seven days of admission; and reported data for at least one of the pre-specified outcomes (30-day or PICU mortality; length of stay in PICU or hospital; number of ventilator days; and morbid complications, such as nosocomial infections). We excluded studies if they only reported nutritional outcomes, quality of life assessments, or economic implications. Furthermore, we did not address other areas of paediatric nutrition, such as immunonutrition and different routes of delivering enteral nutrition, in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened the searches, applied the inclusion criteria, and performed 'Risk of bias' assessments. We resolved discrepancies through discussion and consensus. One author extracted data and a second checked data for accuracy and completeness. We graded the evidence based on the following domains: study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified only one trial as relevant. Seventy-seven children in intensive care with burns involving more than 25% of the total body surface area were randomized to either enteral nutrition within 24 hours or after at least 48 hours. No statistically significant differences were observed for mortality, sepsis, ventilator days, length of stay, unexpected adverse events, resting energy expenditure, nitrogen balance, or albumin levels. We assessed the trial as having unclear risk of bias. We consider the quality of the evidence to be very low due to there being only one small trial. In the most recent search update we identified a protocol for a relevant randomized controlled trial examining the impact of withholding early parenteral nutrition completing enteral nutrition in pediatric critically ill patients; no results have been published.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was only one randomized trial relevant to the review question. Research is urgently needed to identify best practices regarding the timing and forms of nutrition for critically ill infants and children.

Serum Albumin and Prealbumin in Calorically Restricted, Nondiseased Individuals: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Undernutrition is often suspected in patients when serum albumin or prealbumin levels are low. We asked whether these measures are indeed low in undernourished people if no inflammatory illness is present.

METHODS

We did a systematic review to identify otherwise healthy subjects who were severely nutrient-deprived due to poor access to food or unwillingness to eat. We excluded children and pregnant women. We tabulated available measures of nutrient intake, anthropometry, serum albumin and prealbumin, and, when available, changes in these measures during nutritional intervention.

RESULTS

In otherwise healthy subjects, serum albumin and prealbumin levels remained normal despite marked nutrient deprivation until the extremes of starvation, that is, body mass index <12 or more than 6 weeks of starvation.

CONCLUSIONS

In these otherwise healthy subjects, serum albumin and prealbumin levels are not "markers of nutritional status." The "markers" failed to identify subjects with severe protein-calorie malnutrition until extreme starvation. That is, they failed to identify healthy individuals who would benefit from nutrition support, becoming abnormal only when starvation was already obvious. In contrast, serum albumin and prealbumin levels are known to fall promptly with injury or illness regardless of nutrient intake. They are negative acute-phase reactants. When these measures are low in sick patients, this cannot be assumed to reflect nutritional deprivation. Decisions about nutrition support should be based on evidence of meaningful benefit from this treatment rather than on assessment of "nutritional markers."

Inflammation, negative nitrogen balance, and outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the impact of inflammation and negative nitrogen balance (NBAL) on nutritional status and outcomes after subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH).

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study of SAH patients admitted between May 2008 and June 2012. Measurements of C-reactive protein (CRP), transthyretin (TTR), resting energy expenditure (REE), and NBAL (g/day) were performed over 4 preset time periods during the first 14 postbleed days (PBD) in addition to daily caloric intake. Factors associated with REE and NBAL were analyzed with multivariable linear regression. Hospital-acquired infections (HAI) were tracked daily for time-to-event analyses. Poor outcome at 3 months was defined as a modified Rankin Scale score ≥ 4 and assessed by multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

There were 229 patients with an average age of 55 ± 15 years. Higher REE was associated with younger age (p = 0.02), male sex (p < 0.001), higher Hunt Hess grade (p = 0.001), and higher modified Fisher score (p = 0.01). Negative NBAL was associated with lower caloric intake (p < 0.001), higher body mass index (p < 0.001), aneurysm clipping (p = 0.03), and higher CRP:TTR ratio (p = 0.03). HAIs developed in 53 (23%) patients on mean PBD 8 ± 3. Older age (p = 0.002), higher Hunt Hess (p < 0.001), lower caloric intake (p = 0.001), and negative NBAL (p = 0.04) predicted time to first HAI. Poor outcome at 3 months was associated with higher Hunt Hess grade (p < 0.001), older age (p < 0.001), negative NBAL (p = 0.01), HAI (p = 0.03), higher CRP:TTR ratio (p = 0.04), higher body mass index (p = 0.03), and delayed cerebral ischemia (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Negative NBAL after SAH is influenced by inflammation and associated with an increased risk of HAI and poor outcome. Underfeeding and systemic inflammation are potential modifiable risk factors for negative NBAL and poor outcome after SAH.

The evidence for the use of nutritional support in liver disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although there is a well established association between malnutrition and poorer clinical outcomes in patients with liver disease, that fact alone does not prove that improving the malnutrition will improve outcome. The best way to determine if nutritional interventions are effective is to compare them to untreated control groups in well designed and executed randomized clinical trials.

RECENT FINDINGS

A recent systematic review assessed 37 trials that compared parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or nutritional supplements to no nutritional therapy in patients with a variety of liver diseases. Since the publication of that review, an additional three trials have become available. Whereas all but one of the trials did have methodologic shortcomings that may have allowed the introduction of bias (which usually results in an overestimation of benefit), the trials failed to show much, if any, benefit. In fact, the single trial at low risk of bias found that more deaths occurred in the recipients of the supplements.

SUMMARY

Although malnutrition may be associated with a poor outcome, the current best evidence indicates that the provision of adjunctive nutritional support (parenteral or enteral nutrition, or nutritional supplements) to patients with a variety of liver diseases (alcoholic hepatitis, cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver surgery, liver transplantation, obstructive jaundice, hepatitis C antiviral treatment) does not improve clinical outcomes.

The presence and effect of bias in trials of early enteral nutrition in critical care

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials suggest that early enteral nutrition is beneficial in critically ill adults. However, methodologic bias can overestimate benefit.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the potential effect of methodologic bias on these trials.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCE

Randomized trials identified in electronic searches of PUBMED, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, and in various handsearches.

METHODS

The primary (mortality, morbidity) and secondary (time on ventilator or in intensive care unit/hospital, cost) outcomes were abstracted from each identified trial comparing early enteral nutrition to no/delayed enteral nutrition. Each trial was assessed for six domains of methodologic bias (sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, intention-to-treat, selective outcome reporting, other). No low risk of bias trial (adequate in all six domains) was identified, so such trials could not be compared to the others. Instead, meta-analyses of trials with more or fewer risks were compared in the following ways: adequate methodology to deal with ≥3 or ≤2 domains; Jadad scores ≥3 or ≤2; adequate versus not adequate for each domain.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In the 15 identified trials, early enteral nutrition appeared to improve mortality and infectious morbidity. Mortality benefit was observed only in trials with more risks of bias; infectious morbidity benefit was observed in some analyses of trials with fewer bias risks.

LIMITATIONS

Small numbers of trials and missing information.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits attributed to early enteral nutrition were either seen only in trials with high risks of bias or may result from residual risks of bias.

Advantages of enteral nutrition over parenteral nutrition

It is a strong and commonly held belief among nutrition clinicians that enteral nutrition is preferable to parenteral nutrition. We provide a narrative review of more recent studies and technical reviews comparing enteral nutrition with parenteral nutrition. Despite significant weaknesses in the existing data, current literature continues to support the use of enteral nutrition in patients requiring nutrition support, over parenteral nutrition.

Treatment of metabolic syndrome by combination of physical activity and diet needs an optimal protein intake: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for protein intake has been set at 1.0-1.3 g/kg/day for senior. To date, no consensus exists on the lower threshold intake (LTI = RDA/1.3) for the protein intake (PI) needed in senior patients ongoing both combined caloric restriction and physical activity treatment for metabolic syndrome. Considering that age, caloric restriction and exercise are three increasing factors of protein need, this study was dedicated to determine the minimal PI in this situation, through the determination of albuminemia that is the blood marker of protein homeostasis.

METHODS

Twenty eight subjects (19 M, 9 F, 61.8 ± 6.5 years, BMI 33.4 ± 4.1 kg/m²) with metabolic syndrome completed a three-week residential programme (Day 0 to Day 21) controlled for nutrition (energy balance of -500 kcal/day) and physical activity (3.5 hours/day). Patients were randomly assigned in two groups: Normal-PI (NPI: 1.0 g/kg/day) and High-PI (HPI: 1.2 g/kg/day). Then, patients returned home and were followed for six months. Albuminemia was measured at D0, D21, D90 and D180.

RESULTS

At baseline, PI was spontaneously 1.0 g/kg/day for both groups. Albuminemia was 40.6 g/l for NPI and 40.8 g/l for HPI. A marginal protein under-nutrition appeared in NPI with a decreased albuminemia at D90 below 35 g/l (34.3 versus 41.5 g/l for HPI, p < 0.05), whereas albuminemia remained stable in HPI.

CONCLUSION

During the treatment based on restricted diet and exercise in senior people with metabolic syndrome, the lower threshold intake for protein must be set at 1.2 g/kg/day to maintain blood protein homeostasis.

Appropriate protein provision in critical illness: a systematic and narrative review

BACKGROUND

Widely varying recommendations have been published with regard to the appropriate amount of protein or amino acids to provide in critical illness.

OBJECTIVE

We carried out a systematic review of clinical trials that compared the metabolic or clinical effects of different protein intakes in adult critical illness and comprehensively reviewed all of the available evidence pertinent to the safe upper limit of protein provision in this setting.

DESIGN

MEDLINE was searched for clinical trials published in English between 1948 and 2012 that provided original data comparing the effects of different levels of protein intake on clinically relevant outcomes and evidence pertinent to the safe upper limit of protein provision to critically ill adults.

RESULTS

The limited amount and poor quality of the evidence preclude conclusions or clinical recommendations but strongly suggest that 2.0-2.5 g protein substrate · kg normal body weight⁻¹ · d⁻¹ is safe and could be optimum for most critically ill patients. At the present time, most critically ill adults receive less than half of the most common current recommendation, 1.5 g protein · kg⁻¹ · d⁻¹, for the first week or longer of their stay in an intensive care unit.

CONCLUSION

There is an urgent need for well-designed clinical trials to identify the appropriate level of protein provision in critical illness.

Nutritional support for liver disease

BACKGROUND

Weight loss and muscle wasting are commonly found in patients with end-stage liver disease. Since there is an association between malnutrition and poor clinical outcome, such patients (or those at risk of becoming malnourished) are often given parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or oral nutritional supplements. These interventions have costs and adverse effects, so it is important to prove that their use results in improved morbidity or mortality, or both.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, and oral nutritional supplements on the mortality and morbidity of patients with underlying liver disease.

SEARCH METHODS

The following computerised databases were searched: the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded (January 2012). In addition, reference lists of identified trials and review articles and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched. Trials identified in a previous systematic handsearch of Index Medicus were also considered. Handsearches of a number of medical journals, including abstracts from annual meetings, were done. Experts in the field and manufacturers of nutrient formulations were contacted for potential references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials (parallel or cross-over design) comparing groups of patients with any underlying liver disease who received, or did not receive, enteral or parenteral nutrition or oral nutritional supplements were identified without restriction on date, language, or publication status. Six categories of trials were separately considered: medical or surgical patients receiving parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or supplements.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The following data were sought in each report: date of publication; geographical location; inclusion and exclusion criteria; the type of nutritional support and constitution of the nutrient formulation; duration of treatment; any nutrition provided to the controls; other interventions provided to the patients; number, sex, age of the study participants; hospital or outpatient status; underlying liver disease; risks of bias (sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome reporting, intention-to-treat analysis, selective outcome reporting, others (vested interests, baseline imbalance, early stopping)); mortality; hepatic morbidity (development or resolution of ascites or hepatic encephalopathy, occurrence of gastrointestinal bleeding); quality of life scores; adverse events; infections; lengths of stay in the hospital or intensive care unit; costs; serum bilirubin; postoperative complications (surgical trials only); and nutritional outcomes (nitrogen balance, anthropometric measurements, body weight). The primary outcomes of this review were mortality, hepatic morbidity, quality of life, and adverse events. Data were extracted in duplicate; differences were resolved by consensus.Data for each outcome were combined in a meta-analysis (RevMan 5.1). Estimates were reported using risk ratios or mean differences, along with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Both fixed-effect and random-effects models were employed; fixed-effect models were reported unless one model, but not the other, found a significant difference (in which case both were reported). Heterogeneity was assessed by the Chi(2) test and I(2) statistic. Subgroup analyses were planned to assess specific liver diseases (alcoholic hepatitis, cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma), acute or chronic liver diseases, and trials employing standard or branched-chain amino acid formulations (for the hepatic encephalopathy outcomes). Sensitivity analyses were planned to compare trials at low and high risk of bias and trials reported as full papers. The following exploratory analyses were undertaken: 1) medical and surgical trials were combined for each nutritional intervention; 2) intention-to-treat analyses in which missing dichotomous data were imputed as best- and worst-case scenarios; 3) all trials were combined to assess mortality; 4) effects were estimated by absolute risk reductions.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-seven trials were identified; only one was at low risk of bias. Most of the analyses failed to find any significant differences. The significant findings that were found were the following: 1) icteric medical patients receiving parenteral nutrition had a reduced serum bilirubin (mean difference (MD) -2.86 mg%, 95% CI -3.82 mg% to -1.89 mg%, 3 trials) and better nitrogen balance (MD 3.60 g/day, 95% CI 0.86 g/day to 6.34 g/day, 1 trial); 2) surgical patients receiving parenteral nutrition had a reduced incidence of postoperative ascites only in the fixed-effect model (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.87, 2 trials, I(2) = 70%) and one trial demonstrated a reduction in postoperative complications, especially infections (pneumonia in particular); 3) enteral nutrition may have improved nitrogen balance in medical patients (although a combination of the three trials was not possible); 4) one surgical trial of enteral nutrition found a reduction in postoperative complications; and 5) oral nutritional supplements had several effects in medical patients (reduced occurrence of ascites (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.88, 3 trials), possibly (significant differences only seen in the fixed-effect model) reduced rates of infection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.99, 3 trials, I(2) = 14%), and improved resolution of hepatic encephalopathy (RR 3.75, 95% CI 1.15 to 12.18, 2 trials, I(2) = 79%). While there was no overall effect of the supplements on mortality in medical patients, the one low risk of bias trial found an increased risk of death in the recipients of the supplements. Three trials of supplements in surgical patients failed to show any significant differences. No new information was derived from the various subgroup or sensitivity analyses. The exploratory analyses were also unrevealing except for a logical conundrum. There was no difference in mortality when all of the trials were combined, but the trials of parenteral nutrition found that those recipients had better survival (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.98, 10 trials). Either the former observation represents a type II error or the latter one a type I error.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The data do not compellingly justify the routine use of parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or oral nutritional supplements in patients with liver disease. The fact that all but one of these trials were at high risks of bias even casts doubt on the few benefits that were demonstrated. Data from well-designed and executed randomised trials that include an untreated control group are needed before any such recommendation can be made. Future trials have to be powered adequately to see small, but clinically important, differences.

Nutritional support for liver disease

BACKGROUND

Weight loss and muscle wasting are commonly found in patients with end-stage liver disease. Since there is an association between malnutrition and poor clinical outcome, such patients (or those at risk of becoming malnourished) are often given parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or oral nutritional supplements. These interventions have costs and adverse effects, so it is important to prove that their use results in improved morbidity or mortality, or both.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, and oral nutritional supplements on the mortality and morbidity of patients with underlying liver disease.

SEARCH METHODS

The following computerised databases were searched: the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded (January 2012). In addition, reference lists of identified trials and review articles and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched. Trials identified in a previous systematic handsearch of Index Medicus were also considered. Handsearches of a number of medical journals, including abstracts from annual meetings, were done. Experts in the field and manufacturers of nutrient formulations were contacted for potential references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials (parallel or cross-over design) comparing groups of patients with any underlying liver disease who received, or did not receive, enteral or parenteral nutrition or oral nutritional supplements were identified without restriction on date, language, or publication status. Six categories of trials were separately considered: medical or surgical patients receiving parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or supplements.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The following data were sought in each report: date of publication; geographical location; inclusion and exclusion criteria; the type of nutritional support and constitution of the nutrient formulation; duration of treatment; any nutrition provided to the controls; other interventions provided to the patients; number, sex, age of the study participants; hospital or outpatient status; underlying liver disease; risks of bias (sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome reporting, intention-to-treat analysis, selective outcome reporting, others (vested interests, baseline imbalance, early stopping)); mortality; hepatic morbidity (development or resolution of ascites or hepatic encephalopathy, occurrence of gastrointestinal bleeding); quality of life scores; adverse events; infections; lengths of stay in the hospital or intensive care unit; costs; serum bilirubin; postoperative complications (surgical trials only); and nutritional outcomes (nitrogen balance, anthropometric measurements, body weight). The primary outcomes of this review were mortality, hepatic morbidity, quality of life, and adverse events. Data were extracted in duplicate; differences were resolved by consensus.Data for each outcome were combined in a meta-analysis (RevMan 5.1). Estimates were reported using risk ratios or mean differences, along with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Both fixed-effect and random-effects models were employed; fixed-effect models were reported unless one model, but not the other, found a significant difference (in which case both were reported). Heterogeneity was assessed by the Chi(2) test and I(2) statistic. Subgroup analyses were planned to assess specific liver diseases (alcoholic hepatitis, cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma), acute or chronic liver diseases, and trials employing standard or branched-chain amino acid formulations (for the hepatic encephalopathy outcomes). Sensitivity analyses were planned to compare trials at low and high risk of bias and trials reported as full papers. The following exploratory analyses were undertaken: 1) medical and surgical trials were combined for each nutritional intervention; 2) intention-to-treat analyses in which missing dichotomous data were imputed as best- and worst-case scenarios; 3) all trials were combined to assess mortality; 4) effects were estimated by absolute risk reductions.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-seven trials were identified; only one was at low risk of bias. Most of the analyses failed to find any significant differences. The significant findings that were found were the following: 1) icteric medical patients receiving parenteral nutrition had a reduced serum bilirubin (mean difference (MD) -2.86 mg%, 95% CI -3.82 mg% to -1.89 mg%, 3 trials) and better nitrogen balance (MD 3.60 g/day, 95% CI 0.86 g/day to 6.34 g/day, 1 trial); 2) surgical patients receiving parenteral nutrition had a reduced incidence of postoperative ascites only in the fixed-effect model (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.87, 2 trials, I(2) = 70%) and one trial demonstrated a reduction in postoperative complications, especially infections (pneumonia in particular); 3) enteral nutrition may have improved nitrogen balance in medical patients (although a combination of the three trials was not possible); 4) one surgical trial of enteral nutrition found a reduction in postoperative complications; and 5) oral nutritional supplements had several effects in medical patients (reduced occurrence of ascites (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.88, 3 trials), possibly (significant differences only seen in the fixed-effect model) reduced rates of infection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.99, 3 trials, I(2) = 14%), and improved resolution of hepatic encephalopathy (RR 3.75, 95% CI 1.15 to 12.18, 2 trials, I(2) = 79%). While there was no overall effect of the supplements on mortality in medical patients, the one low risk of bias trial found an increased risk of death in the recipients of the supplements. Three trials of supplements in surgical patients failed to show any significant differences. No new information was derived from the various subgroup or sensitivity analyses. The exploratory analyses were also unrevealing except for a logical conundrum. There was no difference in mortality when all of the trials were combined, but the trials of parenteral nutrition found that those recipients had better survival (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.98, 10 trials). Either the former observation represents a type II error or the latter one a type I error.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The data do not compellingly justify the routine use of parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or oral nutritional supplements in patients with liver disease. The fact that all but one of these trials were at high risks of bias even casts doubt on the few benefits that were demonstrated. Data from well-designed and executed randomised trials that include an untreated control group are needed before any such recommendation can be made. Future trials have to be powered adequately to see small, but clinically important, differences.

Nutrition economics - characterising the economic and health impact of nutrition

There is a new merging of health economics and nutrition disciplines to assess the impact of diet on health and disease prevention and to characterise the health and economic aspects of specific changes in nutritional behaviour and nutrition recommendations. A rationale exists for developing the field of nutrition economics which could offer a better understanding of both nutrition, in the context of having a significant influence on health outcomes, and economics, in order to estimate the absolute and relative monetary impact of health measures. For this purpose, an expert meeting assessed questions aimed at clarifying the scope and identifying the key issues that should be taken into consideration in developing nutrition economics as a discipline that could potentially address important questions. We propose a first multidisciplinary outline for understanding the principles and particular characteristics of this emerging field. We summarise here the concepts and the observations of workshop participants and propose a basic setting for nutrition economics and health outcomes research as a novel discipline to support nutrition, health economics and health policy development in an evidence and health-benefit-based manner.

Nutritional support for critically ill children

BACKGROUND

Nutritional support in the critically ill child has not been well investigated and is a controversial topic within paediatric intensive care. There are no clear guidelines as to the best form or timing of nutrition in critically ill infants and children.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of enteral and total parenteral nutrition on clinically important outcomes for critically ill children.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to February 2007); Ovid EMBASE (1988 to February 2007); OVID Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews; ISI Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded (1965 to February 2007); WebSPIRS Biological Abstracts (1969 to February 2007); and WebSPIRS CAB Abstracts (1972 to February 2007). We also searched trial registries; reviewed reference lists of all potentially relevant studies; handsearched relevant conference proceedings; and contacted experts in the area and manufacturers of enteral and parenteral nutrition products. We did not limit the search by language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies if they were randomized controlled trials; involved paediatric patients, aged one day to 18 years of age, cared for in a paediatric intensive care unit setting (PICU) and received nutrition within the first seven days of admission; and reported data for at least one of the pre-specified outcomes (30-day or PICU mortality; length of stay in PICU or hospital; number of ventilator days; and morbid complications, such as nosocomial infections). We excluded studies if they only reported nutritional outcomes, quality of life assessments, or economic implications. Furthermore, other areas of paediatric nutrition, such as immunonutrition and different routes of delivering enteral nutrition, were not addressed in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened searches, applied inclusion criteria, and performed quality assessments. We resolved discrepancies through discussion and consensus. One author extracted data and a second checked data for accuracy and completeness.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one trial was identified as relevant. Seventy-seven children in intensive care with burns involving > 25% of the total body surface area were randomized to either enteral nutrition within 24 hours or after at least 48 hours. No statistically significant differences were observed for mortality, sepsis, ventilator days, length of stay, unexpected adverse events, resting energy expenditure, nitrogen balance, or albumin levels. The trial was assessed as of low methodological quality (based on the Jadad scale) with an unclear risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was only one randomized trial relevant to the review question. Research is urgently needed to identify best practices regarding the timing and forms of nutrition for critically ill infants and children.

Economic impact and quality of life as endpoints of nutritional therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present review exposes why considering primary endpoints such as cost-effectiveness and quality of life in wasting disease research is critical for promoting medical nutrition therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite growing evidence that nutritional support improves patients' clinical outcome, its use is not widely considered as a routine by most healthcare professionals. Many factors, depending on physicians, patients and institutions, could explain such a resistance to implement nutritional therapy in routine care. One of these factors is the lack of indisputable evidence that nutritional intervention improves patients' quality of life and is cost-effective.

SUMMARY

In today's resource-constrained environment, disease management strategies are judged in terms of not only clinical efficacy and safety but also patient satisfaction and economic dimensions. The demonstration of a positive costs/saving ratio is crucial to obtain the political backing of health administrators and sustain further investment in research. Moreover, improving patients' quality of life promotes their capacity to cope with psychological distress, increases their tolerance and response to treatments, and enhances the global image of the healthcare system. In wasting diseases research, there is a need for well designed clinical trials from which cost-utility performance of nutritional interventions could be assessed in order to convince all the stakeholders and to get support from clinicians and patients themselves.

Subjective and objective nutritional assessment methods: what do they really assess?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Objective and subjective methods are used to assess nutritional status. They are used as diagnostic, prognostic and response tools. It is still controversial which of them is more suitable for each situation and what they are really assessing. The most recent findings about these methods will be discussed in this review.

RECENT FINDINGS

Malnutrition still has a high prevalence all over the world. Anthropometric measurements are best useful to assess chronic malnutrition, and albumin and other visceral protein should no longer be considered as nutritional markers, but inflammatory response markers. Subjective global assessment enables comparison among different populations, and its scored version may be useful in other clinical situations besides cancer. Functional methods and bioelectrical impedance analysis may become possible to identify malnutrition in an early stage. Nitrogen balance seems to be the only way to assess the response to nutritional interventions.

SUMMARY

Malnutrition should be understood as a continuum. Nutritional assessment should not be an expensive and time-consuming process, and simple methods such as subjective global assessment may be enough to identify those patients who need nutritional intervention. Future studies may show which method is more suitable to evaluate the response to this treatment.

Parenteral nutrition and urban legends

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To assess the recent literature regarding parenteral nutrition to identify publications that have purported to support various beliefs about the utility of parenteral nutrition, and then to critically evaluate the data presented in those (as well as prior) publications.

RECENT FINDINGS

Artificial nutrition improves nutritional markers but not clinical outcomes, suggesting that malnutrition is not causatively associated with a poor outcome. There are no convincing data that parenteral nutrition is beneficial in severely malnourished surgical patients. Glutamine supplementation of parenteral nutrition solutions may reduce the infectious complication rate, but it is unknown if glutamine-supplemented parenteral nutrition is better than no parenteral nutrition. Most, but not all, systematic reviews have demonstrated that enteral nutrition produces fewer problems than parenteral nutrition; no data suggest that either modality is better than doing no artificial nutrition. Randomized trials have not uniformly been able to demonstrate that parenteral nutrition is efficacious in acute pancreatitis. There is some, but not convincing, data that a regimen of glutamine, growth hormone, and a specialized diet will reduce the need for parenteral nutrition in patients with short bowel syndrome.

SUMMARY

It is important for clinicians to be able to critically evaluate the medical literature.

Protein and the critically ill; do we know what to give?

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has recommended that nutrition support in seriously-ill or injured patients should start at 50% of the estimated target energy and protein needs. This recommendation has caused some concern, since taking the NICE approach leads to these sick individuals receiving an initial N provision of only 0.12 g N/kg per d, as opposed to levels of approximately 0.25 g N/kg per d that have been widely recommended by other expert groups. The basis of the recommendation for higher levels of N provision is that feeding at levels of >/=0.25 g N/kg per d reduces the inevitable net N loss of catabolism and hence minimises overall lean tissue wasting. However, although it has always been assumed that better N balance must equate with better outcome, there are teleological arguments that question the wisdom of providing more N to sicker patients and studies that imply that best N balance might not equate with best clinical progress. Furthermore, current evidence suggests that in most critical illness low initial intakes of both energy and N lead to improved survival. It therefore seems logical to aim, in the first instance, to feed the seriously ill at only modest levels. Further research is required to determine whether lower-energy higher-N feeding would prove better or worse than this approach in terms of clinical benefit rather than just better N retention. Investigations to explore the use of feeds that are specifically designed to match the amino acid needs of illness are also required.

Do Data Support Nutrition Support? Part II. Enteral Artificial Nutrition

Artificial nutrition is widely advocated as adjunctive care in patients with a variety of underlying diseases. In recent years more emphasis has been placed on delivering it directly into the gastrointestinal tract through tubes in the stomach or proximal small intestine (enteral nutrition). Because the efficacy of any therapeutic intervention is best established by demonstrating it in one or more randomized controlled trials, this review focuses on data from such studies. The specific issue to be assessed is the ability of enteral nutrition to influence the mortality and morbidity of various diseases, a question that was addressed in depth in a recent systematic review. This article presents the highlights of that systematic review and puts it in context with the perspective of a practicing food and nutrition professional. Using established search strategies, 30 randomized controlled trials were identified that compared enteral nutrition to no artificial nutrition. In addition, other randomized controlled trials were identified that did provide some insight into the clinical utility of enteral nutrition. The randomized controlled trials were stratified by the underlying disease state. No high-quality evidence indicated that enteral nutrition had any beneficial effect on clinical outcome. Low-quality evidence, which tends to overestimate the treatment effect, suggested that enteral nutrition may be useful in reducing the incidence of postoperative complications and infection rates in intensive care units, improving mortality in chronic liver disease, and reducing length of stay when provided as trophic feeding to low-birth-weight neonates who are also receiving intravenous artificial nutrition. Enteral nutrition was not helpful when given during the first week to patients with dysphagic strokes. Thus, the randomized controlled trials that have compared enteral nutrition to no artificial nutrition have only found benefit when the methodologic rigor of the studies is inadequate to prevent bias from interfering with the interpretation of the data. No high-quality data are available to prove that enteral nutrition is of benefit.

Clinical indications for plasma protein assays: transthyretin (prealbumin) in inflammation and malnutrition

A large number of circumstances are associated with reduced serum concentrations of transthyretin (TTR), or prealbumin. The most common of these is the acute phase response, which may be due to inflammation, malignancy, trauma, or many other disorders. Some studies have shown a decrease in hospital stay with nutritional therapy based on TTR concentrations, but many recent studies have shown that concentrations of albumin, transferrin, and transthyretin correlate with severity of the underlying disease rather than with anthropometric indicators of hypo- or malnutrition. There are few if any conditions in which the concentration of this protein by itself is more helpful in diagnosis, prognosis, or follow up than are other clinical findings. In the majority of cases, the serum concentration of C-reactive protein is adequate for detection and monitoring of acute phase responses and for prognosis. Although over diagnosis and treatment of presumed protein energy malnutrition is probably not detrimental to most patients, the failure to detect other causes of decreased concentrations (such as serious bacterial infections or malignancy) of the so-called visceral or hepatic proteins could possibly result in increased morbidity or even mortality. In addition to these caveats, assays for TTR have a relatively high level of uncertainty ("imprecision"). Clinical evaluation--history and physical examination--should remain the mainstay of nutritional assessment.

Do Data Support Nutrition Support? Part I: Intravenous Nutrition

Intravenous (parenteral) nutrition has been advocated widely as adjunctive care in patients with a variety of underlying diseases. However, the enthusiasm for this therapeutic intervention was based largely on expert opinion. Because the best way to assess the efficacy of any treatment is to test it in a randomized controlled trial, this review will focus on data that was derived from such studies. Using established search strategies, randomized controlled trials were sought that compared one of two forms of intravenous nutrition: parenteral nutrition (nitrogen and >or=10 kcal/kg/day of non-protein calories for >or=5 days) or protein-sparing therapy (nitrogen and fewer non-protein calories) with no type of artificial nutrition beyond regular food and/or standard (5%) dextrose. The randomized controlled trials were stratified by the underlying disease state. The clinical outcomes of interest were mortality, morbidity (total/infectious complications), and/or duration of hospitalization. More than 100 randomized controlled trials failed for the most part to demonstrate that intravenous nutrition had any effect on clinical outcome. There were a few exceptions. In patients undergoing attempted curative surgery for upper gastrointestinal cancer, the use of preoperative parenteral nutrition seemed to reduce the incidence of major postoperative complications. However, this benefit was only found in low-quality randomized controlled trials. Findings conflict regarding the use of parenteral nutrition in patients with acute pancreatitis or undergoing bone marrow transplantation. Parenteral nutrition was harmful when provided to patients undergoing radiation or chemotherapy for cancer. Although no randomized controlled trials exist, it is assumed that parenteral nutrition is useful in patients with an inadequate gastrointestinal tract ("short gut"). Thus, for the most part, randomized controlled trials comparing intravenous nutrition to no artificial nutrition have not shown that this medical intervention is of benefit.

Should patients with cancer be offered nutritional support: does the benefit outweigh the burden?

Nutrition support has been widely advocated as adjunctive therapy for a variety of underlying illnesses, including surgery and medical oncotherapy (radiation or chemotherapy for cancer). Both parenteral and enteral nutrition have been mistakenly viewed as feeding, when, in fact, they are medical interventions with associated risks and costs. The argument that nutrition support has to be provided to patients to prevent 'starving to death' confuses the difference between dying in a malnourished state and dying as a direct consequence of nutrient deprivation; cancer patients fit into the former category. As is true for any other medical intervention, efficacy is best established by randomized controlled clinical trials. When these forms of nutrition support have been so assessed, they have not usually been found to be any more efficacious than food on a tray or intravenous 5% dextrose solutions. In fact, parenteral nutrition actually caused harm in patients receiving medical oncotherapy (more total and infectious complications and fewer tumor responses). With regard to cancer patients, the only benefit that was demonstrated was the use of preoperative parenteral nutrition in patients undergoing attempted curative surgery for cancer of the upper gastrointestinal tract (esophagus, stomach, or pancreas). As nutrition support has associated complications (infections, mechanical problems with the tubes, and metabolic problems from the infusates) as well as costs, it cannot be recommended for cancer patients with the exception of the preoperative care of those with upper gastrointestinal malignancies and the occasional patient with gastrointestinal tract inadequacy owing to a slow-growing lesion.

Hepatology may have problems with putative surrogate outcome measures

A surrogate outcome measure is a laboratory measurement, a physical sign, or another intermediate substitute that is able to predict an intervention's effect on a clinically meaningful outcome. A clinical outcome detects how a patient feels, functions, or survives. Surrogate outcome measures occur faster or more often, are cheaper, and/or are less invasively achieved than the clinical outcome. In practice, validation is surprisingly often overlooked, especially if a biologic plausible rationale is proposed. Surrogate outcomes must be validated before use. The first step in validation is to demonstrate a correlation between the putative surrogate and the clinical outcome, e.g., the higher the surrogate the shorter time to death. However, a correlation is not sufficient to validate the surrogate. The second step is to establish if the intervention's effect on the surrogate outcome accurately predicts the intervention's effect on the clinical outcome. In hepatology a number of putative surrogate outcomes are used both in clinical research and in clinical practice without having been properly validated. Sustained virological response to interferons and ribavirin in patients with chronic hepatitis C, serum bilirubin concentration following ursodeoxycholic acid or immunosuppressants for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis, and nutritional outcomes following artificial nutrition for liver patients may not be valid surrogates for morbidity or mortality. The challenge is to develop reliable surrogates, both to facilitate the development of new interventions and to ensure our patients and us that these interventions are effective clinically.

Does enteral nutrition affect clinical outcome? A systematic review of the randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Both parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) are widely advocated as adjunctive care in patients with various diseases. A systematic review of 82 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PN published in 2001 found little, if any, effect on mortality, morbidity, or duration of hospital stay; in some situations, PN increased infectious complication rates.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to assess the effect of EN or volitional nutrition support (VNS) in individual disease states from available RCTs.

DESIGN

We conducted a systematic review. RCTs comparing EN or VNS with untreated controls, or comparing EN with PN, were identified and separated according to the underlying disease state. Meta-analysis was performed when at least three RCTs provided data. The evidence from the RCTs was summarized into one of five grades. A or B, respectively, indicated the presence of strong or weak (low-quality RCTs) evidence supporting the use of the intervention. C indicated a lack of adequate evidence to make any decision about efficacy. D indicated that limited data could not support the intervention. E indicated either that strong data found no effect, or that either strong or weak data suggested that the intervention caused harm.

PATIENTS AND SETTINGS

RCTs could include either hospitalized or nonhospitalized patients. The EN or VNS had to be provided as part of a treatment plan for an underlying disease process.

INTERVENTIONS

The RCT had to compare recipients of either EN or VNS with controls not receiving any type of artificial nutrition or had to compare recipients of EN with recipients of PN.

OUTCOME MEASURES

These were mortality, morbidity (disease specific), duration of hospitalization, cost, or interventional complications. SUMMARY OF GRADING: A: No indication was identified. B: EN or VNS in the perioperative patient or in patients with chronic liver disease; EN in critically ill patients or low birth weight infants (trophic feeding); VNS in malnourished geriatric patients. (The low-quality trials found a significant difference in survival favoring the VNS recipients in the malnourished geriatric patient trials; two high-quality trials found nonsignificant differences that favored VNS as well.) C: EN or VNS in liver transplantation, cystic fibrosis, renal failure, pediatric conditions other than low birth weight infants, well-nourished geriatric patients, nonstroke neurologic conditions, AIDS; EN in acute pancreatitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, nonmalnourished geriatric patients; VNS in inflammatory bowel disease, arthritis, cardiac disease, pregnancy, allergic patients, preoperative bowel preparation. D: EN or VNS in patients receiving nonsurgical cancer treatment or in patients with hip fractures; EN in patients with inflammatory bowel disease; VNS in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. E: EN in the first week in dysphagic, or VNS at any time in nondysphagic, stroke patients who are not malnourished; dysphagia persisting for weeks will presumably ultimately require EN.

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence for not using EN in the first week in dysphagic, and not using VNS at all in nondysphagic, stroke patients who are not malnourished. There is reasonable evidence for using VNS in malnourished geriatric patients. The recommendations to consider EN/VNS in perioperative/liver/critically ill/low birth weight patients are limited by the low quality of the RCTs. No evidence could be identified to justify the use of EN/VNS in other disease states.

Advances in Surgical Nutrition

Dr. Stanley Dudrick invented total parenteral nutrition in 1968, providing a desperately needed therapy to those patients who could not eat. It has since saved thousands of patients worldwide. Nutrition interventions (NI) in surgical/trauma and critically ill patients have evolved dramatically during the last 20 years from a supportive therapy to a clear therapeutic role. Like any other form of therapy, NI will benefit patients when adequately indicated and prescribed. NI, however, may cause significant side effects and harm when poorly ordered. This article reviews the indications for the prescription of the different forms of NI available to the clinician caring for the surgical patient.