Oral Nutritional Support Can Shorten the Duration of Parenteral Hydration in End-of-Life Cancer Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Adherence to Oral Nutritional Supplements: A Review of Trends in Intervention Characteristics and Terminology Use Since the Year 2000

Research on disease-related malnutrition and adherence to oral nutritional supplements (ONS) has increased in recent years. To guide future studies, it is important to identify trends in terminology use and intervention characteristics. This review aimed to map characteristics of research investigating adherence to ONS in patients with disease-related malnutrition and explore changes over time. This review is a secondary analysis of quantitative studies from a systematic mixed-studies review. Online databases, including PubMed, Cinahl, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and APA PsycInfo, were searched to identify studies published from 2000 to March 2022. A quantitative content analysis of extracted data was performed, and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess methodological risk of bias. This review includes 137 articles, over half of which are randomized controlled trials (52%). The term "oral nutritional supplements" was used in 40% of the studies. Adherence to ONS was mainly described by the term "compliance" (69%). It was most common to offer ready-made milk-based ONS (56%) and ONS as a sole intervention (51%). The prescribed dose of ONS was fixed in 64% of studies and individualized in 22% of studies. There was variation in the methods used to assess adherence to ONS, and adherence was not reported in nearly a fifth of studies. There was an increase in methodological quality over time (p = 0.024). To ensure better understanding and increase the rigor and reproducibility of ONS intervention research, it is crucial to standardize the terminology used and to describe the interventions clearly.

Medically assisted hydration for adults receiving palliative care

BACKGROUND

Many people receiving palliative care have reduced oral intake during their illness, and particularly at the end of their life. Management of this can include the provision of medically assisted hydration (MAH) with the aim of improving their quality of life (QoL), prolonging their life, or both. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 2, 2008, and updated in February 2011 and March 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of MAH compared with placebo and standard care, in adults receiving palliative care on their QoL and survival, and to assess for potential adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CANCERLIT, CareSearch, Dissertation Abstracts, Science Citation Index and the reference lists of all eligible studies, key textbooks, and previous systematic reviews. The date of the latest search conducted on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase was 17 November 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of studies of MAH in adults receiving palliative care aged 18 and above. The criteria for inclusion was the comparison of MAH to placebo or standard care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts for relevance, and two review authors extracted data and performed risk of bias assessment. The primary outcome was QoL using validated scales; secondary outcomes were survival and adverse events. For continuous outcomes, we measured the arithmetic mean and standard deviation (SD), and reported the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) between groups. For dichotomous outcomes, we estimated and compared the risk ratio (RR) with 95% CIs between groups. For time-to-event data, we planned to calculate the survival time from the date of randomisation and to estimate and express the intervention effect as the hazard ratio (HR). We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE and created two summary of findings tables.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified one new study (200 participants), for a total of four studies included in this update (422 participants). All participants had a diagnosis of advanced cancer. With the exception of 29 participants who had a haematological malignancy, all others were solid organ cancers. Two studies each compared MAH to placebo and standard care. There were too few included studies to evaluate different subgroups, such as type of participant, intervention, timing of intervention, and study site. We considered one study to be at high risk of performance and detection bias due to lack of blinding; otherwise, risk of bias was assessed as low or unclear. MAH compared with placebo Quality of life One study measured change in QoL at one week using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) (scale from 0 to 108; higher score = better QoL). No data were available from the other study. We are uncertain whether MAH improves QoL (MD 4.10, 95% CI -1.63 to 9.83; 1 study, 93 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Survival One study reported on survival from study enrolment to last date of follow-up or death. We were unable to estimate HR. No data were available from the other study. We are uncertain whether MAH improves survival (1 study, 93 participants, very low-certainty evidence).  Adverse events One study reported on intensity of adverse events at two days using a numeric rating scale (scale from 0 to 10; lower score = less toxicity). No data were available from the other study. We are uncertain whether MAH leads to adverse events (injection site pain: MD 0.35, 95% CI -1.19 to 1.89; injection site swelling MD -0.59, 95% CI -1.40 to 0.22; 1 study, 49 participants, very low-certainty evidence).  MAH compared with standard care Quality of life No data were available for QoL. Survival One study measured survival from randomisation to last date of follow-up at 14 days or death. No data were available from the other study. We are uncertain whether MAH improves survival (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.59; 1 study, 200 participants, very low-certainty evidence).  Adverse events Two studies measured adverse events at follow-up (range 2 to 14 days). We are uncertain whether MAH leads to adverse events (RR 11.62, 95% CI 1.62 to 83.41; 2 studies, 242 participants, very low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the previous update of this review, we have found one new study. In adults receiving palliative care in the end stage of their illness, there remains insufficient evidence to determine whether MAH improves QoL or prolongs survival, compared with placebo or standard care. Given that all participants were inpatients with advanced cancer at end of life, our findings are not transferable to adults receiving palliative care in other settings, for non-cancer, dementia or neurodegenerative diseases, or for those with an extended prognosis. Clinicians will need to make decisions based on the perceived benefits and harms of MAH for each individual's circumstances, without the benefit of high-quality evidence to guide them.

Effects of specialised nutritional interventions in patients with incurable cancer: a systematic review

Objective

To evaluate current evidence of the effect of specialised nutritional interventions on nutritional status, survival, quality of life and measures of functionality in patients with incurable cancer.

Methods

Systematic literature review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, LILACS and Cochrane Library databases. Clinical studies that evaluated different specialised nutritional interventions, such as nutritional counselling, oral nutritional supplementation (ONS), enteral nutrition (EN) and parenteral nutrition (PN), were eligible. Only studies classified as being of high methodological quality (ie, low or moderate risk of bias) were included.

Results

A total of 22 studies reporting on 2448 patients were deemed eligible. Five types of specialised nutrition were observed: mixed (multimodal nature, ie, dietary counseling, ONS, physical activity and/or drugs) (n=12), ONS (n=5), PN (n=3), EN (n=1) and multidisciplinary team counselling (n=1). Benefits of any kind from the interventions were reported in 14 (63.6%) studies, mainly resulting from mixed intervention. Nutritional status improved in 12 (60.0%) of 20 studies and quality of life improved in eight (50.0%) of 16 studies. Few studies have evaluated the influence of nutritional interventions on survival and measure of functionality, and have not shown improvement in these outcomes.

Conclusion

Despite the limited evidence, specialised nutritional interventions can yield positive effects for patients with incurable cancer, mainly in their nutritional status and quality of life.

End-of-Life Nutrition Considerations: Attitudes, Beliefs, and Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To assess the physiological outcomes and interpersonal influences that should be considered when making the decision to provide artificial nutrition and hydration (AN&H) for patients in hospice/palliative programs.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using items from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015 checklist. Distinct search strategies were employed to find primary research articles that addressed: General health outcomes of artificial nutrition and hydration interventions and nutrition therapy interventions (n = 16), nutrition-related symptoms in end-of-life care (n = 8), and the attitudes of patients and providers toward artificial nutrition and hydration (n = 21).

RESULTS

The effect of AN&H on health outcomes, quality-of-life measures and nutrition-related symptoms is limited and may vary by patient setting and diagnosis. In the absence of consistent evidence for specific health outcomes, decisions regarding AN&H should be made in context of the desires and beliefs of a patient, their family, and their medical providers. These beliefs may not be consistent with likely outcomes or may be inconsistent between individuals involved in the decision-making process, and individuals of different cultures or geographic regions may approach AN&H decisions from different perspectives. To help navigate the intersection of nutrition-related health outcomes and patient/provider beliefs, palliative care teams may employ a variety of strategies for approaching the decision-making process, and may benefit from specific involvement of a Registered Dietitian to help contribute to or lead these discussions.

Are the MORECare guidelines on reporting of attrition in palliative care research populations appropriate? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Palliative care trials have higher rates of attrition. The MORECare guidance recommends applying classifications of attrition to report attrition to help interpret trial results. The guidance separates attrition into three categories: attrition due to death, illness or at random. The aim of our study is to apply the MORECare classifications on reported attrition rates in trials.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted and attrition classifications retrospectively applied. Four databases, EMBASE; Medline, CINHAL and PsychINFO, were searched for randomised controlled trials of palliative care populations from 01.01.2010 to 08.10.2016. This systematic review is part of a larger review looking at recruitment to randomised controlled trials in palliative care, from January 1990 to early October 2016. We ran random-effect models with and without moderators and descriptive statistics to calculate rates of missing data.

RESULTS

One hundred nineteen trials showed a total attrition of 29% (95% CI 28 to 30%). We applied the MORECare classifications of attrition to the 91 papers that contained sufficient information. The main reason for attrition was attrition due to death with a weighted mean of 31.6% (SD 27.4) of attrition cases. Attrition due to illness was cited as the reason for 17.6% (SD 24.5) of participants. In 50.8% (SD 26.5) of cases, the attrition was at random. We did not observe significant differences in missing data between total attrition in non-cancer patients (26%; 95% CI 18-34%) and cancer patients (24%; 95% CI 20-29%). There was significantly more missing data in outpatients (29%; 95% CI 22-36%) than inpatients (16%; 95% CI 10-23%). We noted increased attrition in trials with longer durations.

CONCLUSION

Reporting the cause of attrition is useful in helping to understand trial results. Prospective reporting using the MORECare classifications should improve our understanding of future trials.

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.

The last days of life: symptom burden and impact on nutrition and hydration in cancer patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To examine the symptom burden in cancer patients during the last days of life, its impact on nutrition and hydration, and the role of artificial nutrition and hydration in the final days.

RECENT FINDINGS

During the last days of life, cancer patients often experience progressive functional decline and worsening symptom burden. Many symptoms such as anorexia-cachexia, dysphagia, and delirium could impair oral intake. These, coupled with refractory cachexia, contribute to persistent weight loss and decreased quality of life. Furthermore, the inability to eat/drink and body image changes can result in emotional distress for patients and caregivers. Clinicians caring for these individuals need to ensure longitudinal communication about goals of care, education about the natural process of dying, optimization of symptom management, and provide appropriate emotional support for patients and caregivers. There is a lack of evidence to support that artificial nutrition and hydration can improve outcomes during the last days of life. Artificial nutrition is not recommended because of its invasive nature, whereas artificial hydration may be considered on a case-by-case basis.

SUMMARY

This review highlights the need to conduct further research on symptom burden, nutrition, and hydration during the last days of life.

Efficacy and safety of an amino acid jelly containing coenzyme Q10 and L-carnitine in controlling fatigue in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a multi-institutional, randomized, exploratory trial (JORTC-CAM01)

PURPOSE

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is one of the most common symptoms reported by cancer patients. This randomized trial investigated the efficacy of the amino acid jelly Inner Power(®) (IP), a semi-solid, orally administrable dietary supplement containing coenzyme Q10 and L-carnitine, in controlling CRF in breast cancer patients in Japan.

METHODS

Breast cancer patients with CRF undergoing chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive IP once daily or regular care for 21 days. The primary endpoint was the change in the worst level of fatigue during the past 24 h (Brief Fatigue Inventory [BFI] item 3 score) from day 1 (baseline) to day 22. Secondary endpoints were change in global fatigue score (GFS; the average of all BFI items), anxiety and depression assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), quality of life assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EORTC Breast Cancer-Specific QLQ (EORTC QLQ-BR23), and adverse events.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 57 were included in the efficacy analysis. Median patient age was 50 years. Changes in the worst level of fatigue, GFS, and current feeling of fatigue were significantly different between the intervention and control groups, whereas the change in the average feeling of fatigue was not significantly different between groups. HADS, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EORTC QLQ-BR23 scores were not significantly different between the two groups. No severe adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSION

IP may control moderate-severe CRF in breast cancer patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The registration number of this study in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR) is UMIN000008646.