Follow-up of a randomized trial for oat cell carcinoma evaluating the efficacy of peripheral intravenous nutrition (PIVN) as adjunct treatment

Nutrition support in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of disease-related malnutrition in Western European hospitals is estimated to be about 30%. There is no consensus whether poor nutritional status causes poorer clinical outcome or if it is merely associated with it. The intention with all forms of nutrition support is to increase uptake of essential nutrients and improve clinical outcome. Previous reviews have shown conflicting results with regard to the effects of nutrition support.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of nutrition support versus no intervention, treatment as usual, or placebo in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), LILACS (BIREME), and Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp); ClinicalTrials.gov; Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP); Google Scholar; and BIOSIS, as well as relevant bibliographies of review articles and personal files. All searches are current to February 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We include randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication type, publication date, and language, comparing nutrition support versus control in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk. We exclude trials assessing non-standard nutrition support.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group. We used trial domains to assess the risks of systematic error (bias). We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control for the risks of random errors. We considered a P value of 0.025 or less as statistically significant. We used GRADE methodology. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 244 randomised clinical trials with 28,619 participants that met our inclusion criteria. We considered all trials to be at high risk of bias. Two trials accounted for one-third of all included participants. The included participants were heterogenous with regard to disease (20 different medical specialties). The experimental interventions were parenteral nutrition (86 trials); enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) (80 trials); oral nutrition support (55 trials); mixed experimental intervention (12 trials); general nutrition support (9 trials); and fortified food (2 trials). The control interventions were treatment as usual (122 trials); no intervention (107 trials); and placebo (15 trials). In 204/244 trials, the intervention lasted three days or more.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term mortality (end of intervention). The absolute risk was 8.3% across the control groups compared with 7.8% (7.1% to 8.5%) in the intervention groups, based on the risk ratio (RR) of 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.03, P = 0.16, 21,758 participants, 114 trials, low quality of evidence). We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for long-term mortality (maximum follow-up). The absolute risk was 13.2% in the control group compared with 12.2% (11.6% to 13%) following nutritional interventions based on a RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99, P = 0.03, 23,170 participants, 127 trials, low quality of evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term serious adverse events. The absolute risk was 9.9% in the control groups versus 9.2% (8.5% to 10%), with nutrition based on the RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.01, P = 0.07, 22,087 participants, 123 trials, low quality of evidence). At long-term follow-up, the reduction in the risk of serious adverse events was 1.5%, from 15.2% in control groups to 13.8% (12.9% to 14.7%) following nutritional support (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97, P = 0.004, 23,413 participants, 137 trials, low quality of evidence). However, the Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.Trial Sequential Analysis of enteral nutrition alone showed that enteral nutrition might reduce serious adverse events at maximum follow-up in people with different diseases. We could find no beneficial effect of oral nutrition support or parenteral nutrition support on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events in any subgroup.Only 16 trials assessed health-related quality of life. We performed a meta-analysis of two trials reporting EuroQoL utility score at long-term follow-up and found very low quality of evidence for effects of nutritional support on quality of life (mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; 3961 participants, two trials). Trial Sequential Analyses showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject clinically relevant intervention effects on quality of life.Nutrition support may increase weight at short-term follow-up (MD 1.32 kg, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.00, 5445 participants, 68 trials, very low quality of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-quality evidence for the effects of nutrition support on mortality and serious adverse events. Based on the results of our review, it does not appear to lead to a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more in either all-cause mortality or serious adverse events at short-term and long-term follow-up.There is very low-quality evidence for an increase in weight with nutrition support at the end of treatment in hospitalised adults determined to be at nutritional risk. The effects of nutrition support on all remaining outcomes are unclear.Despite the clinically heterogenous population and the high risk of bias of all included trials, our analyses showed limited signs of statistical heterogeneity. Further trials may be warranted, assessing enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) for different patient groups. Future trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic errors and low risks of random errors, and they also ought to assess health-related quality of life.

Nutrition in Patients with Gastric Cancer: An Update

BACKGROUND

Nutritional management of patients with gastric cancer (GC) represents a challenge.

SUMMARY

This review provides an overview of the present evidence on nutritional support in patients with GC undergoing surgery as well as in those with advanced disease.

KEY MESSAGE

For patients undergoing surgery, the preoperative nutritional condition directly affects postoperative prognosis, overall survival and disease-specific survival. Perioperative nutritional support enriched with immune-stimulating nutrients reduces overall complications and hospital stay but not mortality after major elective gastrointestinal surgery. Early enteral nutrition after surgery improves early and long-term postoperative nutritional status and reduces the length of hospitalization as well. Vitamin B12 and iron deficiency are common metabolic sequelae after gastrectomy and warrant appropriate replacement. In malnourished patients with advanced GC, short-term home complementary parenteral nutrition improves the quality of life, nutritional status and functional status. Total home parenteral nutrition represents the only modality of caloric intake for patients with advanced GC who are unable to take oral or enteral nutrition.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Early evaluations of nutritional status and nutritional support represent key aspects in the management of GC patients with both operable and advanced disease.

Nutrition care in patients with cancer: A retrospective multicenter analysis of current practice - Indications for further studies?

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Weight loss and malnutrition are frequent problems in oncology patients. The aim of this study was to get a perspective of the current practice of parenteral nutrition (PN) care in an outpatient setting and to improve patient-centered nutritional care.

METHODS

Fifty-three outpatient oncology centers participated in this observational study performed between July 2010 and March 2011. All participating centers entered data online into a web-based documentation form, containing a number of oncology patients, diagnoses, and detailed data about oncology patients receiving PN.

RESULTS

Two cohorts were analyzed. First cohort consisted of all oncology patients in quarter 04/2010. Second cohort consisted of patients with PN during the whole studying period. In the first cohort 2.46% (n = 626) of 25,424 oncology patients received PN. Most frequent diagnoses of patients receiving PN were gastric cancer (n = 119) and colorectal cancer (n = 104), however most stated diagnosis was "other" (n = 163). In the second cohort (n = 1137), a common indication for PN was impaired gastrointestinal passage (n = 177), although here again most stated reason was "other" (n = 924). In the course of the PN treatment, patients (n = 1137) showed a stable or slowly increasing body mass index (from 21.6 ± 3.8 kg/m(2) to 21.8 ± 3.5 kg/m(2)).

CONCLUSION

This is the largest study outlining the characteristics of oncology patients in the context of PN in German ambulatory centers. They confirm the important role of PN in the care of gastrointestinal cancer. Further studies have to be performed to identify if other indications than those mentioned in relevant guidelines can trigger initiation of PN.

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

In order to determine whether surrogate markers predict clinical outcome, randomized controlled trials (RCT) of nutrition supportv. no nutrition support that have reported at least one clinical outcome (mortality, infections, total complications, or duration of hospitalization) and at least one nutritional outcome (energy or protein intake, weight gain, N balance, albumin, prealbumin, transferrin, three anthropometric measures, skin testing, lymphocyte count) were assessed for concordance. If changes in nutritional markers predict clinical outcome, changes in both outcomes should go in the same direction. Concordance is defined as both outcomes changing in the same direction or both outcomes showing no difference. Discordance is defined as one outcome changing and the other not (partial) or both outcomes changing in opposite directions (complete). Ninety-nine RCT were identified, of which most were underpowered to see statistically significant changes, especially in clinical outcomes. Thus, the results were analysed only in relation to the direction of the respective changes in outcomes. Forty-eight comparisons (4×12) were made. The rates of concordance were ≤50% in forty-one of forty-eight comparisons; the rate was never >75%. A complete discordance rate of ≥25% was present in forty-three (≥50% in thirteen) of the forty-eight comparisons. The discordance was usually a result of the nutritional outcome being better than the clinical outcome. Changes in nutritional markers do not predict clinical outcomes. Before adopting any surrogate marker as an end point for a clinical trial, it has to be known that improving it will result in patient benefit.

AGA technical review on parenteral nutrition

This literature review and the recommendations therein were prepared for the American Gastroenterological Association Clinical Practice and Practice Economics Committee. The paper was approved by the Committee on September 13, 2001, and by the AGA Governing Board on May 18, 2001.

Nutrition support in patients with cancer: what do the data really show?

Although more than 70 prospective randomized controlled trials have evaluated the use of nutrition support in patients with cancer, the indications for nutrition therapy in this patient population remain controversial. We reviewed the published prospective randomized controlled trials that evaluated clinically important endpoints (morbidity, mortality, and duration of hospitalization). Many trials had serious shortcomings in study design that limit the ability to draw definitive conclusions from the data. In general, the data failed to demonstrate the clinical efficacy of providing nutrition support to most patients with cancer. Therefore, the indications for using nutrition therapy should be the same as those for patients with benign disease.

Parenteral nutrition in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: effects on toxicity and nutritional status

The role of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) in reducing toxicity related to cancer chemotherapy (CT) is presently a controversial issue. To evaluate the effectiveness of TPN in reducing CT-associated toxicity and correcting and preventing CT-related impairments of nutritional status, a prospective crossover controlled study was performed in 43 cancer patients (19 normally nourished and 24 malnourished) randomly divided into two groups (A and B). Group A patients received TPN concomitantly with the first course of chemotherapy, and the second course was administered 21 to 28 days later without TPN support; group B patients were treated in the opposite sequence. The rates of myelotoxicities and gastrointestinal toxicities after CT courses with or without TPN were essentially similar in normally nourished and malnourished patients. No changes in nutritional indexes were detected in normally nourished subjects after each course. Conversely, in undernourished subjects, prealbumin, retinol-binding protein, and nitrogen balance increased in CT+TPN courses (p < .02). In CT-only courses, undernourished subjects showed a decrease in prealbumin and nitrogen balance. Significant changes of nitrogen balance in CT vs CT+TPN courses were detected in malnourished subjects. TPN appears to be unable to reduce CT-associated toxicity. CT administration does not result in any impairment of the nutritional status in normally nourished cancer patients. From our study, it appears that TPN should be limited to severely malnourished neoplastic patients undergoing CT, because of its ability to prevent further impairment of nutritional status and to improve the nitrogen balance and the levels of fast-turnover visceral proteins.

Nutritional support: how much for how much?

Although malnutrition is associated with poor clinical outcome, it cannot be inferred that better nutrition will improve clinical outcome. Efficacy of a proposed regimen is best established by prospective, randomised, controlled trials. Cost effectiveness is only an issue if efficacy exists. Patients with long term temporary, or permanent, inadequate bowel syndrome are candidates for parenteral nutrition. Most of the prospective, randomised, controlled trials testing the value of nutritional support in other diseases, however, have failed to show that this treatment has a beneficial clinical effect. Areas where these trials have shown a possible clinical benefit include the perioperative care of patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer, elemental diet treatment of Crohn's disease, and branched chain amino acid infusions in hepatic encephalopathy. Even in these instances, it is not clear that such treatment will prove to be cost effective (compared with other currently available treatments).

Critical evaluation of the role of nutritional support with chemotherapy

Although weight loss has an adverse impact on cancer patient survival, the ability of caloric provision via total parenteral nutrition (TPN) to favorably influence outcome in chemotherapy-treated populations is not established. In randomized trials, no significant improvement in either response or survival was associated with TPN addition to chemotherapeutic treatment of adult patients with lymphoma, sarcoma, colon cancer, adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma of the lung, or testicular carcinoma. In two instances, TPN addition was associated with decreased survival, again raising the concern that caloric support in the absence of effective antitumor therapy might stimulate cancer growth. In any event, the hypothesis that nutritional repletion of a malnourished cancer patient receiving chemotherapy will improve clinical outcome remains to be critically tested, as studies demonstrating sequential improvement in lean body mass have not been reported. Most recently, consideration of potential mechanisms underlying the development of cancer cachexia has led to new strategies for nutritional intervention. For example, hypogonadism or low testosterone levels have been described in male patient populations with advanced cancer and correlated with weight loss and adverse outcome, leading to trial of replacement therapy with nandrolone decanoate. Similarly, the frequent identification of abnormal glucose metabolism in the patients with cancer cachexia has stimulated clinical trials with agents such as hydrazine sulfate and insulin designed to reverse the metabolic abnormality. Whether such efforts designed to alter metabolic abnormalities associated with cancer cachexia will improve clinical outcome will be determined in ongoing clinical trials.