Heterogeneity of nutrition care procedures in nutrition guidelines for cancer patients

Quality Evaluation of Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Liver Failure

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to systematically assess the methodological quality and key recommendations of the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of liver failure (LF), furnishing constructive insights for guideline developers and equipping clinicians with evidence-based information to facilitate informed decision-making.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases and manual searches from January 2011 to August 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, then full texts for eligibility. Fourteen guidelines were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers extracted data and checked by two others. Methodological quality of the guidelines was appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Of the 14 guidelines, only the guidelines established by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the American College of Gastroenterology (2023) achieved an aggregate quality score exceeding 60%, thereby meriting clinical recommendations. It emerged that there remains ample room for enhancement in the quality of the guidelines, particularly within the domains of stakeholder engagement, rigor, and applicability. Furthermore, an in-depth scrutiny of common recommendations and supporting evidence drawn from the 10 adult LF guidelines unveiled several key issues: controversy exists in the recommendation, the absence of supporting evidence and confusing use of evidence for recommendations, and a preference in evidence selection.

CONCLUSIONS

There are high differences in methodological quality and recommendations among LF guidelines. Improving these existing problems and controversies will benefit existing clinical practice and will be an effective way for developers to upgrade the guidelines.

Sipping as a Nutritional Supplement in Ambulatory Palliative Oncology Care: A Pilot Study with Noninvasive Methods

Objective: The implementation of nutritional support is a basic need of patients in palliative oncological care. This pilot study optimized the use of sipping to improve the nutritional status of cancer patients in palliative care. Materials and Method: The pilot study included 63 patients, 61.3 years of age on average (range: 32-82 years of age). The patients were assigned to either group A (no nutritional support n = 39 patients) or group B (sipping as nutritional support n = 24 patients). The patients were evaluated through by noninvasive methods: body weight, waist and arm circumference, and triceps skinfold, bioimpedance analysis, and dynamometry. Quality of life was assessed through modified questionnaires. Results: In contrast with group A, group B did not have a significant weight loss, that is, A: 81.9 ± 15.8-80.5 ± 15.8 kg (P = .028) and B: 73.9 ± 14.9-73 ± 16 kg. Body mass index A: 29 ± 5-28.5 ± 5 kg/m2 (P = .007) and B: 25.3 ± 4.7-25 ± 4.9 kg/m2 (P = .614). Waist circumference A: 93.5 ± 15.1-92.5 ± 14.8 cm (P = .008) and B: 80.1 ± 13.2-80.6 ± 12.3 cm (P = .234). Triceps skinfold A: 12.3 ± 7.2-11 ± 6.7 mm (P = .001) and B: 8.2 ± 6.1-7.9 ± 5.7 mm (P = .207). Fat free mass A: 54.8 ± 11.5-52.8 ± 11.6 kg (P = .018) and B: 54.7 ± 10.9-52.8 ± 11.5 kg (P = .207). Significantly lower dynamometer values were recorded in both groups; A: 25.6 ± 10.4-23.1 ± 10.3 kg (P = .010) and B: 27.4 ± 9.9-24.3 ± 9.1 kg (P = .009). In contrast to group B, the patients in group A showed slight variations in their health status, thus decreasing their scores into the significance limit (P = .072). Conclusion: Our results suggest that providing nutritional support in the form of sipping (∼12 g proteins, 300 kcal) on a daily basis prevents the loss of active tissue mass in palliative oncology patients. Based on these results, we recommend the inclusion of this simple nutritional support to prevent malnutrition in cancer patients in palliative care. The clinical study was registered by the internal ethics committee under the heading of its approval - Institutional Ethics Committee of the Hradec Králové Faculty Hospital, number 201311S2OP.

Characterization and monitoring of nutritional risk and nutritional status in oncological patients admitted to an oncological surgery unit: A longitudinal study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

malnutrition is a common phenomenon in people with cancer and can occur at all stages of the disease trajectory. Prevention, early identification of patients at risk of malnutrition, nutritional diagnosis, and personalized intervention, monitoring and follow-up are essential measures to minimize the occurrence of malnutrition and its consequences. This study aims to evaluate if current institutional practices regarding nutritional intervention guarantees nutritional/dietary care for cancer patients.

METHODS

adescriptive, analytical and longitudinal study was carried out, lasting five months, in a hospital inpatient surgical oncology unit. All patients admitted to the unit in the period between 1 March and 31 July 2022, who underwent nutritional screening at the time of admission to the service, were included. During hospitalization, they were subjected to periodic assessments of weight, body mass index and nutritional screening every 7 days until discharge.

RESULTS

a total of 659 patients were admitted to the inpatient unit. The highest prevalence of malnutrition was observed in Head and Neck (37.6%), Genitourinary (30.8%) and Digestive (27.7%) cancers. Weight loss was especially significant in digestive, skin and sarcoma cancers, as well as genitourinary cancers, but not in breast cancer patients. During the hospitalization period, 14.0% of the hospitalized patients received nutrition-related nursing intervention, and 21.5% were referred for clinical dietetic intervention (by a registered dietitian).

CONCLUSION

this work reinforces the high prevalence of malnutrition in oncological patients and the need to systematically track cancer patients throughout their disease/treatment trajectory, from admission to the hospital, to the day of admission to inpatient unit, and subsequent follow-up. We also propose expedited referrals to different specialized centres in nutritional support for cancer patients from the first day of hospitalization. Assessment of patients should always be accompanied by active referral capacity to a specialized and duly trained nutritional care team that is quick, proactive, and responsive.

Quality appraisal of clinical nutrition practice guidelines for critically ill adult patients: a systematic review using the Advancing Guideline Development, Reporting and Evaluation in Health Care instrument II (AGREE-II) and AGREE-Recommendation Excellence (AGREE-REX)

Nutritional therapy should follow evidence-based practice, thus several societies regarding nutrition and critical care have developed specific Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG). However, to be regarded as trustworthy, the quality of the CPG for critically ill patients and its recommendations need to be high. This systematic review aimed to appraise the methodology and recommendations of nutrition CPG for critically ill patients. We performed a systematic review (protocol number CRD42020184199) with literature search conducted on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and other four specific databases of guidelines up to October 2021. Two reviewers, independently, assessed titles and abstracts and potentially eligible full-text reports to determine eligibility and subsequently four reviewers appraised the guidelines quality using the Advancing Guideline Development, Reporting and Evaluation in Health Care instrument II (AGREE-II) and AGREE-Recommendation Excellence (AGREE-REX). Ten CPG for nutrition in critically ill patients were identified. Only Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine had a total acceptable quality and were recommended for daily practice according AGREE-II. None of the CPG recommendations had an overall quality score above 70 %, thus being classified as moderate quality according AGREE-REX. The methodological evaluation of the critically ill adult patient CPG revealed significant discrepancies and showed a need for improvement in its development and/or reporting. In addition, recommendations about nutrition care process presented a moderate quality.

Nutrition management for patients with head and neck cancer during peri-radiotherapy: A systematic review and quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines using the AGREE II instrument

Objective

To evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for nutrition management of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) during peri-radiotherapy, as well as to summarize the nutrition recommendations fitting the subject.

Methods

CPGs published in English, Chinese and German were identified from databases, guideline networks, and websites of nutritional associations from the databases’ inception to March 8, 2022. Three independent appraisers used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) Instrument to assess the quality of CPGs. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to calculate appraiser agreement.

Results

769 records were identified. After removing duplicates, 470 articles were screened. 12 CPGs were identified with nutrition-specific recommendations. 67% of CPGs were rated as high quality, and 33% as low quality. Recommendations were categorized into nutritional risk screening, nutrition assessment, nutrition counseling, nutrition interventions, nutrition intake, swallowing function management, weight management, exercise, multidisciplinary team, post-discharge care, nutrients, and pharmacologic interventions.

Conclusion

We found discrepant recommendations in existing CPGs, including nutrition screening, nutrition assessment, nutrition intake, and nutrients. We also reported the absence of essential parts of CPGs, including the views of its target users, the statement of external review, the method to formulate the recommendations, strategies to improve uptake, and resource implications of applying the CPGs. CPGs with low quality should be improved in future updates based on currently available guideline development tools. Specialized CPGs on nutrition management for HNC patients during peri-radiotherapy should be developed.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/index.php, identifier CRD42022320322.

Evaluation of guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of achalasia

Due to the unclear quality of the current guidelines, users may be confused about how to diagnose and treat achalasia. The objective of this work is to systematically evaluate the methodological quality of the current guidelines for diagnosing and treating achalasia and to determine the heterogeneity among recommendations. We systematically searched literature databases to retrieve relevant guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of achalasia. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included guidelines. Key recommendations in the guidelines were extracted, and the reasons for the heterogeneity of the key recommendations between different guidelines were further analyzed. Seven guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of achalasia are included in this study. The overall score of three guidelines exceeded 60%. The average score in domain 5 was the lowest, at 41.8%. The average scores in domain 2, domain 3, and domain 6 were also low, at 45.4%, 57.1% and 56.9%, respectively. The main recommendations and quality of evidence for different guidelines vary greatly, mainly due to the different emphases among different guidelines, the lack of systematic retrieval, or the unfairness of evidence use in some guidelines. There are considerable differences in the methodological quality of diagnosis and treatment guidelines for achalasia. Additionally, the differences in the main recommendations and evidence support among guidelines are also obvious. Guideline developers should improve the above related factors to decrease the heterogeneity, and they should further formulate or update the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of achalasia.

Clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus statements on rehabilitation for patients with COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 is a highly infectious disease, characterised by respiratory, physical and psychological dysfunctions. Rehabilitation could effectively alleviate the symptoms and promote recovery of the physical and mental health of patients with COVID-19. Recently, rehabilitation medical institutions have issued clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and expert consensus statements involving recommendations for rehabilitation assessments and rehabilitation therapies for COVID-19. This systematic review aims to assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of the guidance documents, evaluate the heterogeneity of the recommendations and summarise the recommendations with respect to rehabilitation assessments and rehabilitation therapies for COVID-19 to provide a quick reference for front-line clinicians, therapists and patients as well as reasonable suggestions for future guidelines.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP), Wanfang Database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and websites of governments or organisations (eg, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network and WHO) will be searched for eligible CPGs and expert consensus statements from inception to August 2022. CPGs and expert consensus statements published in Chinese or English and presenting recommendations for modern functional rehabilitation techniques and/or traditional Chinese medicine rehabilitation techniques for COVID-19 will be included. Reviews, interpretations, old versions of CPGs and expert consensus statements and those for the management of other diseases during the pandemic will be excluded. Two reviewers will independently review each article, extract data, appraise the methodological quality following the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II tool and assess the reporting quality with the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare statement. The Measurement Scale of Rate of Agreement will be used to evaluate the heterogeneity of the recommendations in different CPGs and expert consensus statements. Agreement between reviewers will be calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient. We will also summarise the recommendations for rehabilitation in patients with COVID-19. The results will be narratively described and presented as tables or figures.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not needed for this systematic review because information from published documents will be used. The findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020190761.

Current guidelines for nutrition therapy in cancer: The arrival of a long journey or the starting point?

Large epidemiological data reveal that cancer is progressively becoming a chronic and disabling disease. Implementation in daily practice of early therapies aiming at addressing patients' needs is imperative. Nutrition is a major determinant of patients' quality of life, yet it is frequently neglected. Hopefully, reverting this skeptical clinical approach to nutrition, clinical practice guidelines of nutrition care in patients with cancer have been developed and published by international oncology and nutrition societies. By analyzing the more recent guidelines, it appears that a number of issues may contribute to their insufficient implementation in daily practice. Among them are heterogeneity of recommendations across different guidelines and insufficient robustness of evidence, as well as questionable generalization of recommendations. Future guidelines should aim at providing tumor-specific recommendations for the whole clinical journey of patients with cancer. Also, new, interesting areas should be covered, including fasting metabolism and circadian rhythmicity.

What Determines the Quality of Rehabilitation Clinical Practice Guidelines?: An Overview Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to determine what factors determine the quality of rehabilitation clinical practice guidelines.

DESIGN

Six databases were searched for articles that had applied the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II quality assessment tool to rehabilitation clinical practice guidelines. The 573 deduplicated abstracts were independently screened by two authors, resulting in 81 articles, the full texts of which were independently screened by two authors for Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II application to rehabilitation clinical practice guidelines, resulting in a final selection of 40 reviews appraising 504 clinical practice guidelines. Data were extracted from these by one author and checked by a second. Data on each clinical practice guideline included the six Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II domain scores, as well as the two Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II global evaluations.

RESULTS

All six Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II domain scores were statistically significant predictors of overall clinical practice guideline quality rating; D3 (rigor of development) was the strongest and D1 (scope and purpose) the weakest (overall model P < 0.001, R2 = 0.53). Five of the six domain scores were significant predictors of the clinical practice guideline use recommendation, with D3 the strongest predictor and D5 (applicability) the weakest (overall model P < 0.001, pseudo R2 = 0.53).

CONCLUSIONS

Quality of rehabilitation clinical practice guidelines may be improved by addressing key domains such as rigor of development.

Nutrition Care Process Model Approach to Surgical Prehabilitation in Oncology

The nutrition care process is a standardized and systematic method used by nutrition professionals to assess, diagnose, treat, and monitor patients. Using the nutrition care process model, we demonstrate how nutrition prehabilitation can be applied to the pre-surgical oncology patient.

Current Landscape of Nutrition Within Prehabilitation Oncology Research: A Scoping Review

Background: Prehabilitation aims to improve functional capacity prior to cancer treatment to achieve better psychosocial and clinical outcomes. Prehabilitation interventions vary considerably in design and delivery. In order to identify gaps in knowledge and facilitate the design of future studies, we undertook a scoping review of prehabilitation studies to map the range of work on prehabilitation being carried out in any cancer type and with a particular focus on diet or nutrition interventions. Objectives: Firstly, to describe the type of prehabilitation programs currently being conducted. Secondly, to describe the extent to which prehabilitation studies involved aspects of nutrition, including assessment, interventions, implementation, and outcomes. Eligibility Criteria: Any study of quantitative or qualitative design that employed a formal prehabilitation program before cancer treatment ("prehabilitation" listed in keywords, title, or abstract). Sources of Evidence: Search was conducted in July 2020 using MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL, and AMED. Charting Methods: Quantitative data were reported as frequencies. Qualitative nutrition data were charted using a framework analysis that reflects the Nutrition Care Process Model: assessment, intervention, and monitoring/evaluation of the nutrition intervention. Results: Five hundred fifty unique articles were identified: 110 studies met inclusion criteria of a formal prehabilitation study in oncology. prehabilitation studies were mostly cohort studies (41%) or randomized-controlled trials (38%) of multimodal (49%), or exercise-only (44%) interventions that were applied before surgery (94%). Nutrition assessment was inconsistently applied across these studies, and often conducted without validated tools (46%). Of the 110 studies, 37 (34%) included a nutrition treatment component. Half of these studies provided the goal for the nutrition component of their prehabilitation program; of these goals, less than half referenced accepted nutrition guidelines in surgery or oncology. Nutrition interventions largely consisted of counseling with dietary supplementation. The nutrition intervention was indiscernible in 24% of studies. Two-thirds of studies did not monitor the nutrition intervention nor evaluate nutrition outcomes. Conclusion: Prehabilitation literature lacks standardized and validated nutritional assessment, is frequently conducted without evidence-based nutrition interventions, and is typically implemented without monitoring the nutrition intervention or evaluating the intervention's contribution to outcomes. We suggest that the development of a core outcome set could improve the quality of the studies, enable pooling of evidence, and address some of the research gaps identified.

Malnourished lung cancer patients have poor baseline functional capacity but show greatest improvements with multimodal prehabilitation

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to characterize the presence of malnutrition, examine the association between malnutrition and baseline functional capacity (FC), and the extent to which patients benefit from preoperative multimodal prehabilitation in patients undergoing lung resection for cancer.

METHODS

Data from 162 participants enrolled in multimodal prehabilitation or control before lung cancer surgery were analyzed. Malnutrition was measured using the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) according to triage levels: low-nutrition-risk (PG-SGA 0-3), moderate-nutrition-risk (4-8) and high-nutrition-risk (≥9). Baseline differences in FC, measured by the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), were compared. Factorial analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to examine the effect of nutrition status and intervention on mean change in 6MWT preoperatively.

RESULTS

51.2% patients were considered low-nutrition-risk, 37.7% moderate-nutrition-risk, and 11.1% high-nutrition-risk. Low-nutrition-risk patients had significantly higher 6MWT at baseline (mean of 484 m [standard deviation (SD) = 88]) compared with moderate-nutrition-risk (432 m [SD = 107], P = .005) and high-nutrition-risk groups (416 m [SD = 90], P = .022). The adjusted mean change in 6MWT between prehabilitation vs control was 18.1 (95% confidence interval, 3.8 to 32.3) vs 5.6 m (-14.1 to 25.4) in low-nutrition-risk (P = .309), 28.5 (11 to 46) vs -4 m (-31.3 to 23.4) in moderate-nutrition-risk (P = .053), and 58.9 (16.7 to 101.2) vs -39.7 m (-80.2 to 0.826) in high-nutrition-risk group (P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Lung cancer patients at high-nutrition-risk awaiting surgery had significantly lower baseline FC compared with low-nutrition-risk patients but experienced significant improvements in preoperative FC upon receiving multimodal prehabilitation.

Quality assessment of the guidelines for the management of malignant pleural effusions and ascites

Objectives

To fully assess the quality of the guidelines for the management of malignant pleural effusions (MPE) and ascites and reveal the heterogeneity of recommendations and possible reasons among guidelines.

Methods

A systematic search was performed in the database to obtain guidelines for the management of MPE and ascites. The AGREE IIGtool was used to assess the quality of these guidelines. The Measurement Scale of Rate of Agreement (MSRA) was introduced to assess the scientific agreement of formulated recommendations for the management of MPE and ascites among guidelines, and evidence supporting these recommendations was extracted and analyzed.

Results

Nine guidelines were identified. Only 4 guidelines scored more than 60% and are worth recommending. Recommendations were also heterogeneous among guidelines for the management of MPE, and the main reasons were the different emphases of the recommendations for the treatment of MPE, the contradictions in recommendations, and the unreasonably cited evidence for MPE.

Conclusions

The quality of the management guidelines for patients with MPE and malignant ascites was highly variable. Specific improvement of the factors leading to the heterogeneity of recommendations will be a reasonable and effective way for developers to upgrade the recommendations in the guidelines for MPE.

Opportunities for Quality Improvement Programs (QIPs) in the Nutrition Support of Patients with Cancer

Malnutrition in patients with cancer is a ubiquitous but neglected problem that can reduce patient survival/quality of life and increase treatment interruptions, readmission rates, and healthcare costs. Malnutrition interventions, including nutrition support through dietary counseling, diet fortification, oral nutrition supplements (ONS), and enteral and parenteral nutrition can help improve health outcomes. However, nutritional care standards and interventions for cancer are ambiguous and inconsistently applied. The lack of systematic malnutrition screening and intervention in ambulatory cancer care has especially significant consequences and thus the nutrition support of patients with cancer represents an area for quality improvement. United States healthcare payment models such as the Oncology Care Model are linked to quality of care and health outcomes. Quality improvement programs (QIPs) can advance patient-centered care, perfect care processes, and help healthcare professionals meet their quality measure performance goals. Malnutrition QIPs like the Malnutrition Quality Improvement Initiative (MQii) have been shown to be effective in identifying and treating malnutrition. However, little is known about or has been reported on nutrition or malnutrition-focused QIPs in cancer care. This paper provides information to support translational research on quality improvement and outlines the gaps and potential opportunities for QIPs in the nutrition support of patients with cancer.

Determination of butyric acid dosage based on clinical and experimental studies - a literature review

Short-chain fatty acids produced by bacteria living in the large intestine are the main energy substrate for the colonocytes. Butyric acid is used for the treatment and prevention of exacerbations of various gastrointestinal diseases: diarrhoea, intestinal inflammations, functional disorders, dysbiosis, and post-surgery or post-chemotherapy conditions. The current standard doses of butyric acid (150–300 mg) range between 1.5–3% and 15–30% of the reported daily demand. Increased metabolism of the colonocytes in conditions involving intestine damage or inflammation, increased energy expenditure during a disease, stimulation of intestine growth in ‘stress’ conditions with accelerated intestinal passage and increased intestinal excretion, and decreased production of endogenous butyrate due to changes in bacterial flora in different pathological conditions require a significant increase of the supply of this acid. Physiological high demand for butyrate and known mechanisms of pathological conditions indicate that current supplementation doses do not cover the demand and their increase should be considered.