Preventive versus "on-demand" nutritional support during antiviral treatment for hepatitis C: a randomized controlled trial

Dietary advice with or without oral nutritional supplements for disease-related malnutrition in adults

BACKGROUND

Disease-related malnutrition has been reported in 10% to 55% of people in hospital and the community and is associated with significant health and social-care costs. Dietary advice (DA) encouraging consumption of energy- and nutrient-rich foods rather than oral nutritional supplements (ONS) may be an initial treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To examine evidence that DA with/without ONS in adults with disease-related malnutrition improves survival, weight, anthropometry and quality of life (QoL).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified relevant publications from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearching. Last search: 01 March 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of DA with/without ONS in adults with disease-related malnutrition in any healthcare setting compared with no advice, ONS or DA alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, extracted data and graded evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 94, mostly parallel, RCTs (102 comparisons; 10,284 adults) across many conditions possibly explaining the high heterogeneity.  Participants were mostly older people in hospital, residential care and the community, with limited reporting on their sex. Studies lasted from one month to 6.5 years.  DA versus no advice - 24 RCTs (3523 participants) Most outcomes had low-certainty evidence. There may be little or no effect on mortality after three months, RR 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 2.96), or at later time points. We had no three-month data, but advice may make little or no difference to hospitalisations, or days in hospital after four to six months and up to 12 months. A similar effect was seen for complications at up to three months, MD 0.00 (95% CI -0.32 to 0.32) and between four and six months. Advice may improve weight after three months, MD 0.97 kg (95% CI 0.06 to 1.87) continuing at four to six months and up to 12 months; and may result in a greater gain in fat-free mass (FFM) after 12 months, but not earlier. It may also improve global QoL at up to three months, MD 3.30 (95% CI 1.47 to 5.13), but not later. DA versus ONS - 12 RCTs (852 participants) All outcomes had low-certainty evidence. There may be little or no effect on mortality after three months, RR 0.66 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.26), or at later time points. Either intervention may make little or no difference to hospitalisations at three months, RR 0.36 (95% CI 0.04 to 3.24), but ONS may reduce hospitalisations up to six months. There was little or no difference between groups in weight change at three months, MD -0.14 kg (95% CI -2.01 to 1.74), or between four to six months. Advice (one study) may lead to better global QoL scores but only after 12 months. No study reported days in hospital, complications or FFM. DA versus DA plus ONS - 22 RCTs (1286 participants) Most outcomes had low-certainty evidence. There may be little or no effect on mortality after three months, RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.80) or at later time points. At three months advice may lead to fewer hospitalisations, RR 1.70 (95% CI 1.04 to 2.77), but not at up to six months. There may be little or no effect on length of hospital stay at up to three months, MD -1.07 (95% CI -4.10 to 1.97). At three months DA plus ONS may lead to fewer complications, RR 0.75 (95% CI o.56 to 0.99); greater weight gain, MD 1.15 kg (95% CI 0.42 to 1.87); and better global QoL scores, MD 0.33 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.57), but this was not seen at other time points. There was no effect on FFM at three months. DA plus ONS if required versus no advice or ONS - 31 RCTs (3308 participants) Evidence was moderate- to low-certainty. There may be little or no effect on mortality at three months, RR 0.82 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.16) or at later time points. Similarly, little or no effect on hospitalisations at three months, RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.15), at four to six months and up to 12 months; on days in hospital at three months, MD -0.12 (95% CI -2.48 to 2.25) or for complications at any time point. At three months, advice plus ONS probably improve weight, MD 1.25 kg (95% CI 0.73 to 1.76) and may improve FFM, 0.82 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.29), but these effects were not seen later. There may be little or no effect of either intervention on global QoL scores at three months, but advice plus ONS may improve scores at up to 12 months. DA plus ONS versus no advice or ONS - 13 RCTs (1315 participants) Evidence was low- to very low-certainty. There may be little or no effect on mortality after three months, RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.55 to 1.52) or at later time points. No study reported hospitalisations and there may be little or no effect on days in hospital after three months, MD -1.81 (95% CI -3.65 to 0.04) or six months. Advice plus ONS may lead to fewer complications up to three months, MD 0.42 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.89) (one study). Interventions may make little or no difference to weight at three months, MD 1.08 kg (95% CI -0.17 to 2.33); however, advice plus ONS may improve weight at four to six months and up to 12 months. Interventions may make little or no difference in FFM or global QoL scores at any time point.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of an effect of any intervention on mortality. There may be weight gain with DA and with DA plus ONS in the short term, but the benefits of DA when compared with ONS are uncertain. The size and direction of effect and the length of intervention and follow-up required for benefits to emerge were inconsistent for all other outcomes.  There were too few data for many outcomes to allow meaningful conclusions. Studies focusing on both patient-centred and healthcare outcomes are needed to address the questions in this review.

The Impact of Hepatitis C Virus Direct-Acting Antivirals on Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Dutch Prospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Pegylated interferon-based therapy for hepatitis C virus (HCV) negatively impacts nutritional state and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) such as health-related quality of life (HRQL). Clinical trials with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) report significant PRO improvement but real-world data are still scarce.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study recruiting HCV patients treated with DAAs in 2015-2016. Data at baseline, end of treatment (EOT) and 12 weeks thereafter (FU12) included: patient-reported medication adherence; SF-36; Karnofsky Performance Status; paid labour productivity; physical exercise level; nutritional state [by body mass index (BMI) and Jamar hand grip strength (HGS)] and Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire. Potential factors predicting these PROs were evaluated with multiple regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 68 patients were enrolled: 85% male, median age 57 years, 80% genotype 1, 40% cirrhotics, 46% haemophilia. Both cure rate and patient-reported adherence were 97%. SF-36 Physical Component Summary did not change (43.2 ± 11.9, 44.9 ± 10.3 and 44.7 ± 10.9 at baseline, EOT and FU12, p = 0.71). In contrast, SF-36 mental component summary (MCS) decreased transiently during therapy (49.2 ± 11.9, 44.6 ± 10.3 and 49.9 ± 12.6 at baseline, EOT and FU12, p < 0.01). Concomitant ribavirin-use was the only independent predictor of decreased SF-36 MCS. BMI (25.7 ± 4.5 and 25.6 ± 4.4 at baseline and EOT, p = 0.8) and Jamar HGS (39.7 ± 13.0, 37.4 ± 11.9 and 37.9 ± 13.8 at baseline, EOT and FU12, p = 0.56) did not change.

CONCLUSION

Our study reveals concomitant ribavirin as the only independent predictor of transient decrease in SF-36 mental HRQL during DAA therapy. In contrast to interferon-based therapy, DAAs do not affect BMI or Jamar HGS.

Orange juice as dietary source of antioxidants for patients with hepatitis C under antiviral therapy

Background: HCV causes alterations in liver metabolism, resulting in biochemical and nutritional disorders. Supplementation with antioxidants has been suggested to minimize the diseases effects.

Objective: This study assessed whether orange juice, a source of citrus flavonoids and vitamin C, may contribute to the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C.

Design: Anthropometric, hemodynamic, dietary, and biochemical parameters, CRP and liver enzymes were measured in 43 adult patients of both genders who were diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C and were under antiviral therapy. Twenty-three patients were supplemented with orange juice for eight consecutive weeks, while 20 were enrolled as control group.

Results: Following regular use of orange juice, no alterations were found in body mass, fat, and waist circumference. The serum levels of total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, CRP and parameters of oxidative stress decreased in the orange juice group. Furthermore, the levels of the liver enzyme AST decreased in those who had high levels before the intervention.

Conclusion: The orange juice was a convenient food in the diet of patients due to the increase in antioxidant capacity and decreased inflammation and cholesterol in blood serum, in addition to maintaining body mass, which protect against the harmful effects caused by the chronic hepatitis C virus.​​​

Supportive interventions for enhancing dietary intake in malnourished or nutritionally at-risk adults

BACKGROUND

Supportive interventions such as serving meals in a dining room environment or the use of assistants to feed patients are frequently recommended for the management of nutritionally vulnerable groups. Such interventions are included in many policy and guideline documents and have implications for staff time but may incur additional costs, yet there appears to be a lack of evidence for their efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of supportive interventions for enhancing dietary intake in malnourished or nutritionally at-risk adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified publications from comprehensive searches of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, SCOPUS, ISI Web of Science databases, scrutiny of the reference lists of included trials and related systematic reviews and handsearching the abstracts of relevant meetings. The date of the last search for all databases was 31 March 2013. Additional searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP were undertaken to September 2016. The date of the last search for these databases was 14 September 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of supportive interventions given with the aim of enhancing dietary intake in nutritionally vulnerable adults compared with usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors and for the final search, the editor, selected trials from titles and abstracts and independently assessed eligibility of selected trials. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias, as well as evaluating overall quality of the evidence utilising the GRADE instrument, and then agreed as they entered data into the review. The likelihood of clinical heterogeneity amongst trials was judged to be high as trials were in populations with widely different clinical backgrounds, conducted in different healthcare settings and despite some grouping of similar interventions, involved interventions that varied considerably. We were only able, therefore, to conduct meta-analyses for the outcome measures, 'all-cause mortality', 'hospitalisation' and 'nutritional status (weight change)'.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one trials (10,681 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Trials were grouped according to similar interventions (changes to organisation of nutritional care (N = 13; 3456 participants), changes to the feeding environment (N = 5; 351 participants), modification of meal profile or pattern (N = 12; 649 participants), additional supplementation of meals (N = 10; 6022 participants) and home meal delivery systems (N = 1; 203 participants). Follow-up ranged from 'duration of hospital stay' to 12 months.The overall quality of evidence was moderate to very low, with the majority of trials judged to be at an unclear risk of bias in several risk of bias domains. The risk ratio (RR) for all-cause mortality was 0.78 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92); P = 0.004; 12 trials; 6683 participants; moderate-quality evidence. This translates into 26 (95% CI 9 to 41) fewer cases of death per 1000 participants in favour of supportive interventions. The RR for number of participants with any medical complication ranged from 1.42 in favour of control compared with 0.59 in favour of supportive interventions (very low-quality evidence). Only five trials (4451 participants) investigated health-related quality of life showing no substantial differences between intervention and comparator groups. Information on patient satisfaction was unreliable. The effects of supportive interventions versus comparators on hospitalisation showed a mean difference (MD) of -0.5 days (95% CI -2.6 to 1.6); P = 0.65; 5 trials; 667 participants; very low-quality evidence. Only three of 41 included trials (4108 participants; very low-quality evidence) reported on adverse events, describing intolerance to the supplement (diarrhoea, vomiting; 5/34 participants) and discontinuation of oral nutritional supplements because of refusal or dislike of taste (567/2017 participants). Meta-analysis across 17 trials with adequate data on weight change revealed an overall improvement in weight in favour of supportive interventions versus control: MD 0.6 kg (95% CI 0.21 to 1.02); 2024 participants; moderate-quality evidence. A total of 27 trials investigated nutritional intake with a majority of trials not finding marked differences in energy intake between intervention and comparator groups. Only three trials (1152 participants) reported some data on economic costs but did not use accepted health economic methods (very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence of moderate to very low quality to suggest that supportive interventions to improve nutritional care results in minimal weight gain. Most of the evidence for the lower risk of all-cause mortality for supportive interventions comes from hospital-based trials and more research is needed to confirm this effect. There is very low-quality evidence regarding adverse effects; therefore whilst some of these interventions are advocated at a national level clinicians should recognise the lack of clear evidence to support their role. This review highlights the importance of assessing patient-important outcomes in future research.

Effects of preventive versus "on-demand" nutritional support on paid labour productivity, physical exercise and performance status during PEG-interferon-containing treatment for hepatitis C

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Deterioration of nutritional status during PEG-interferon containing therapy for chronic hepatitis C can be ameliorated by preventive nutritional support. We aimed to explore whether such support also affects paid labour productivity, physical exercise and performance status.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized controlled trial (J Hepatol 2012;57:1069-75), 53 patients with chronic hepatitis C had been allocated to "on demand" support (n=26: nutritional intervention if weight loss>5%) or preventive support (n=27: regular dietary advice plus energy- and protein-rich evening snack) during PEG-interferon-containing therapy. Paid labour productivity, physical exercise and performance status were evaluated at baseline, after 24 and (if applicable) after 48 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

At baseline, 46% of patients performed paid labour and 62% performed some kind of physical exercise. Furthermore, most patients were able to carry out normal activity with only minor symptoms of disease (mean Karnofsky performance score: 94). Decreases of paid labour productivity (-21% vs. -70%, P=0.003), physical exercise activity (-43% vs. -87%, P=0.005) and Karnofsky performance scores (-12% vs. -24%, P<0.001) were less in the preventive than in "on demand" group after 24 weeks of treatment. Effects of preventive nutritional support were even more pronounced after 48 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Preventive nutritional support markedly ameliorates decreases of paid labour productivity, physical exercise and performance status during PEG-interferon-containing treatment for chronic hepatitis C.

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.