A multi-national survey of experience and attitudes towards commencing home parenteral nutrition for patients with advanced cancer

Avoiding the use of long-term parenteral support in patients without intestinal failure: A position paper from the European Society of Clinical Nutrition & Metabolism, the European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility and the Rome Foundation for Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction

The role of long-term parenteral support in patients with underlying benign conditions who do not have intestinal failure (IF) is contentious, not least since there are clear benefits in utilising the oral or enteral route for nutritional support. Furthermore, the risks of long-term home parenteral nutrition (HPN) are significant, with significant impacts on morbidity and mortality. There has, however, been a recent upsurge of the use of HPN in patients with conditions such as gastro-intestinal neuromuscular disorders, opioid bowel dysfunction, disorders of gut-brain interaction and possibly eating disorders, who do not have IF. As a result, the European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN), the European Society of Neuro-gastroenterology and Motility (ESNM) and the Rome Foundation for Disorders of Gut Brain Interaction felt that a position statement is required to clarify - and hopefully reduce the potential for harm associated with - the use of long-term parenteral support in patients without IF. Consensus opinion is that HPN should not be prescribed for patients without IF, where the oral and/or enteral route can be utilised. On the rare occasions that PN commencement is required to treat life-threatening malnutrition in conditions such as those listed above, it should only be prescribed for a time-limited period to achieve nutritional safety, while the wider multi-disciplinary team focus on more appropriate biopsychosocial holistic and rehabilitative approaches to manage the patient's primary underlying condition.

Avoiding the use of long-term parenteral support in patients without intestinal failure: A position paper from the European Society of Clinical Nutrition & Metabolism, the European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility and the Rome Foundation for Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction

The role of long-term parenteral support in patients with underlying benign conditions who do not have intestinal failure (IF) is contentious, not least since there are clear benefits in utilising the oral or enteral route for nutritional support. Furthermore, the risks of long-term home parenteral nutrition (HPN) are significant, with significant impacts on morbidity and mortality. There has, however, been a recent upsurge of the use of HPN in patients with conditions such as gastro-intestinal neuromuscular disorders, opioid bowel dysfunction, disorders of gut-brain interaction and possibly eating disorders, who do not have IF. As a result, the European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN), the European Society of Neuro-gastroenterology and Motility (ESNM) and the Rome Foundation for Disorders of Gut Brain Interaction felt that a position statement is required to clarify - and hopefully reduce the potential for harm associated with - the use of long-term parenteral support in patients without IF. Consensus opinion is that HPN should not be prescribed for patients without IF, where the oral and/or enteral route can be utilised. On the rare occasions that PN commencement is required to treat life-threatening malnutrition in conditions such as those listed above, it should only be prescribed for a time-limited period to achieve nutritional safety, while the wider multi-disciplinary team focus on more appropriate biopsychosocial holistic and rehabilitative approaches to manage the patient's primary underlying condition.

[Improving the nutritional care of oncology patients - Validation of a multidisciplinary protocol in the Spanish clinical setting]

Introduction

Introduction: malnutrition is a very frequent problem in oncology patients and may have serious repercussions. Adequate nutritional management is cost-effective in terms of health and survival in this population, but it requires multidisciplinary coordination, specific training, and continuous follow-up. Objective: to validate the applicability and efficacy of a multidisciplinary nutritional support protocol in oncology patients. Methods: a multidisciplinary nutritional protocol was developed for oncology patients, with guidelines for screening and assessment of malnutrition, treatment, re-evaluation, and management of side effects, as well as guidance on supplementation and eating patterns. The protocol would be implemented in various clinical centers, collecting data through a structured questionnaire, registering variables before and after implementation. Results: the protocol and its impact were implemented and evaluated in 39 centers. An improvement in nutritional care was observed, evidenced by an earlier initiation of nutritional assessment and an increase in the number of patients receiving adequate care following the protocol implementation. Problems related to inadequate malnutrition coding in the centers, limited resources, and the need for greater interdepartmental collaboration were identified. Conclusions: the conduct of this study provides insights into how the implementation of a multidisciplinary nutritional support protocol can improve the nutritional care received by patients and informs about the main obstacles to adequate implementation.

The role of the nutrition in malnourished cancer patients: Revisiting an old dilemma

BACKGROUND & AIMS

GLIM definition of malnutrition is recognised all over the world and, when is referring to cancer, it specifies that weight or muscle loss are associated with an inflammatory status. However, the real-world practice shows that GLIM definition cannot encompass all the wide and heterogenous clinical presentations of cancer patients with malnutrition, which involves many other drivers beyond inflammation. Moreover, placing an excessive emphasis on the inflammation can overshadow, in the clinical practice, the role of the nutritional support in malnourished cancer patients. The aim of this paper is not to criticize the rationale of the GLIM definition of cancer cachexia, but to show the complexity and heterogeneity of malnutrition of cancer patients and reasons why nutritional support should deserve such a better consideration among the oncologists.

METHODS

Literature pertinent to pathophysiology of malnutrition of cancer patients is scrutinised and reasons for the frequent underuse of nutritional support are critically analysed.

RESULTS

The appraisal of the literature shows that there are various pathophysiological patterns of malnutrition among cancer patients and inflammatory markers are not universally present in weight-losing cancer patients. Inflammation alone does not account for weight loss in all cancer patients and factors other than inflammation can drive hypophagia and weight loss, and hypophagia appears to be a primary catalyst for weight loss. Furthermore, malnutrition may be the consequence of the presence of several Nutrition Impact Symptoms or of the oncologic therapy. The nutritional support may fail to show benefits in malnourished cancer patients because the golden standard to validate a therapy relies on RCT, but it is ethically impossible to have an unfed control group of malnourished patients. Furthermore, nutritional interventions often fell short of the optimal standards, adherence to treatment plans was often poor, nutritional support was mainly reserved for very advanced patients and the primary endpoints of the studies on nutritional support were sometimes unrealistic.

CONCLUSION

There is a gap between the suggestion of the guidelines which advocate the use of nutritional support to improve the compliance of patients facing intensive oncologic treatments or to prevent an early demise when patients enter a chronic phase of slow nutritional deterioration, and the poor use of nutrition in the real-world practice. This requires a higher level of awareness of the oncologists concerning the reasons for the lacking evidence of efficacy of the nutritional support and an understanding of its potential contribute to improve the outcome of the patients. Finally, this paper calls for a change of the oncologist's approach to the cancer patient, from only focusing on the cure of the tumour to taking care of the patient as a whole.

[Home parenteral nutrition in patients with malignant bowel obstruction. Ethical considerations]

Introduction

Background: patients with cancer are one of the main group of patients on home parenteral nutrition (HPN). Patients with malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) represent a challenging group when considering HPN. At the Ethics Working Group of SENPE ethical considerations on this subject were reviewed and a guidelines proposal was made. Methods: a literature search was done and a full set of questions arose: When, if ever, is HPN indicated for patients with MBO? How should the training program be? When withdrawal of HPN should be considered? Other questions should be also taken into consideration. May any Oncologist send home a patient with HPN? The educational program could be shortened? When considering to withdraw parenteral nutrition? Results: HPN in MBO has better outcomes when patients have a good functional status (Karnofsky ≥ 50 or ECOG ≤ 2), expected survival > 2-3 months, and low inflammatory markers. Very few data have been reported on quality of life, but HPN allows a valuable time at home albeit with a considerable burden for both patients and their families. Proposal: once a patient is considered for HPN, there is a need for a deep talk on the benefits, complications and risks. In this initial talk, when HNP should be stopped needs to be included. The palliative care team with the help of the nutrition support team should follow the patient, whose clinical status must be assessed regularly. HPN should be withdrawn when no additional benefits are achieved. Conclusion: HPN may be considered an option in patients with MBO when they have a fair or good functional status and a desire to spend their last days at home.

ESPEN guideline on chronic intestinal failure in adults - Update 2023

BACKGROUND & AIMS

In 2016, ESPEN published the guideline for Chronic Intestinal Failure (CIF) in adults. An updated version of ESPEN guidelines on CIF due to benign disease in adults was devised in order to incorporate new evidence since the publication of the previous ESPEN guidelines.

METHODS

The grading system of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) was used to grade the literature. Recommendations were graded according to the levels of evidence available as A (strong), B (conditional), 0 (weak) and Good practice points (GPP). The recommendations of the 2016 guideline (graded using the GRADE system) which were still valid, because no studies supporting an update were retrieved, were reworded and re-graded accordingly.

RESULTS

The recommendations of the 2016 guideline were reviewed, particularly focusing on definitions, and new chapters were included to devise recommendations on IF centers, chronic enterocutaneous fistulas, costs of IF, caring for CIF patients during pregnancy, transition of patients from pediatric to adult centers. The new guideline consist of 149 recommendations and 16 statements which were voted for consensus by ESPEN members, online in July 2022 and at conference during the annual Congress in September 2022. The Grade of recommendation is GPP for 96 (64.4%) of the recommendations, 0 for 29 (19.5%), B for 19 (12.7%), and A for only five (3.4%). The grade of consensus is "strong consensus" for 148 (99.3%) and "consensus" for one (0.7%) recommendation. The grade of consensus for the statements is "strong consensus" for 14 (87.5%) and "consensus" for two (12.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

It is confirmed that CIF management requires complex technologies, multidisciplinary and multiprofessional activity, and expertise to care for the underlying gastrointestinal disease and to provide HPN support. Most of the recommendations were graded as GPP, but almost all received a strong consensus.

Patients, family members and healthcare professionals' top ten research priorities for adults receiving home parenteral nutrition for malignant or benign disease

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) is the primary treatment for chronic intestinal failure (CIF) due to non-malignant disease and is increasingly used in patients with a diagnosis of cancer. This project engaged with patients, family members and healthcare professionals to ascertain what questions they want researched.

METHODS

This study followed the five-stage process of the James Lind Alliance that involved (1) setting up a steering group, (2) carrying out an initial survey to gather participants' questions, (3) data processing, (4) an interim priority setting survey and (5) final priority setting workshop. Surveys were translated and back translated into Italian, Danish and French.

RESULTS

The project was delivered by an international steering committee with representation from Denmark, Italy, the United Kingdom and United States consisting of three patients, six healthcare professionals and facilitated by University researchers. For the first survey, 633 questions were submitted by 292 respondents from 12 countries. There were 79 questions removed as out of scope or already in the published literature. Responses were collated into two interim surveys of 41 questions for benign CIF and 13 questions for HPN and cancer. In the second survey, 216 respondents prioritised their top ten questions. The ordering from the cancer and HPN survey was taken as definitive; top priorities were quality of life, survival, when to commence HPN, using HPN with anti-cancer treatments, access barriers, measuring benefit and ethical implications. For CIF with benign disease, 18 questions were discussed in two workshops attended by 13 patients and 7 healthcare professionals. The questions were ranked using a modified nominal group technique; the top research priorities were prevention and treatment of liver disease, improving central infusion lines, oral absorption, avoiding long-term negative consequences, vascular access, side effects, line infections, decreasing stoma output, quality of life and sleep.

CONCLUSIONS

Priorities identified will assist researchers to focus on research questions important to patients, family members and healthcare professionals.

Standardised survival and excess Life Years Lost in patients with type 3 intestinal failure

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Long term outcomes have been reported in home parenteral nutrition (HPN)-dependent patients with type 3 intestinal failure (IF), but there are limited survival data standardised to the general population that would help provide a meaningful prognosis for patients and clinicians. The primary aim of this study was therefore to investigate the survival of HPN-dependent patients and to evaluate the specific impact of type 3 IF on their life expectancy standardised to that of the general population.

METHODS

This was a cohort study of adult patients initiated on HPN between 1978 and 2018 at a national UK IF reference centre and followed up until death or censoring date of 31st December 2020. The standardised mortality ratio (SMR) was calculated as observed deaths divided by expected deaths using UK Office for National Statistics database. Excess Life Years Lost (LYL) were calculated separately for each sex as the differences in average life expectancy between patients with type 3 IF and the general population. Survival data were evaluated using cox regression models adjusting for confounding.

RESULTS

In total, 1046 patients were identified, with a total observation time of 7344.1 patient-years. Patients with malignancy (n = 206) were excluded from the survival analysis. Of the remaining 840 patients, 398 were alive by the end of follow-up. The probability of survival was 91.8% at 1 year, 69.3% at 5 years, 54.3% at 10 years, 29.8% at 20 years and 16.7% at 30 years. Patients who did not achieve nutritional autonomy had an increased likelihood of death compared to patients who ceased HPN. In total, 40 (9.0%) deaths were HPN or IF-related, while underlying disease leading to IF accounted for 98 (22.2%) deaths. There were 270 (61.1%) deaths not related to IF, with the majority of these patients dying from infections unrelated to HPN. Overall mortality rates were higher among patients with a diagnosis of type 3 IF compared with the general UK population with a SMR of 7.48 (95% CI 6.80 to 8.21) and an excess mortality rate of 54.0 per 1000 person-years. All mechanisms of IF were associated with excess mortality, with SMR ranging from 6.82 (95% CI 5.98 to 7.72) for short bowel syndrome to 15.51 (95% CI 11.73 to 20.03) for dysmotility. On average, the excess LYL was 17.45 years for males and 17.39 years for females compared with the general population of the same age.

CONCLUSION

This the largest single-centre series reporting survival outcomes in patients with type 3 IF over more than a four-decade period and the first to report LYL in this patient cohort. Type 3 IF was associated with more than seven-fold higher mortality rates than for the general UK population and shorter life expectancies of more than 17 years. Survival, however, was better in those able to achieve nutritional autonomy. Since the majority of deaths were due to non-HPN or non-IF causes, there is clearly a need now to further explore these causes of death in order to improve our understanding of excessive mortality in type 3 IF and develop ways to prevent it.

Home Parenteral Nutrition in Patients with Advanced Cancer: Quality Outcomes from a Centralized Model of Care Delivery

Lack of expertise in home parenteral nutrition (HPN) management has been reported as a barrier to its initiation in patients with advanced cancer (AC), and there are limited data describing hospital readmissions and HPN-related complications. We aimed to assess a centralized approach for managing HPN in AC and evaluate associated outcomes, including hospital readmissions and HPN-related complications. This was a cohort study of adults with AC requiring palliative HPN between 2010–2018 at a tertiary intestinal failure (IF) center, primarily utilizing a centralized model of HPN oversight to discharge patients remotely from an oncology center to their homes over a wide geographic area. A total of 126 patients were included, with a median distance between the patient’s home and the IF center of 17.5 km (IQR 10.9–39.1; maximum 317.4 km). A total of 28 (22%) patients experienced at least one HPN-related complication, the most common being a central venous catheter (CVC) occlusion and electrolyte abnormalities. The catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) rate was 0.49/1000 catheter days. The CVC type, administration of concomitant chemotherapy via a distinct CVC lumen separate from PN, venting gastrostomy and distance between the patient’s home and the IF center were not associated with CRBSI or mechanical CVC complications. A total of 82 (65.1%) patients were readmitted while on HPN, but only 7 (8.5%) of these readmissions were HPN-related. A total of 44 (34.9%) patients died at home, 41 (32.5%) at a hospice and 41 (32.5%) in a hospital. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that a centralized approach to IF care can provide HPN to patients over a large geographical area while maintaining low HPN-related complications that are comparable to patients requiring HPN for benign conditions and low hospital readmission rates.