RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Considering sex-specific factors has become an increasingly recognized area for research and practice, in the field of clinical nutrition, there is insufficient evidence regarding differences in clinical presentation, treatment response, and side effects of nutritional therapy among female and male patients. OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that the clinical presentation, response to nutritional therapy, and side effects from the intervention would differ in the two sexes. METHODS: This secondary analysis investigated differences among female and male patients at risk for malnutrition regarding initial presentation, clinical outcomes, and treatment response in patients included in the Effect of Early Nutritional Support on Frailty, Functional Outcomes, and Recovery of Malnourished Medical Inpatients Trial (EFFORT), a randomized controlled trial comparing individualized nutritional support to usual care. RESULTS: Of 2028 patients included in the trial, 964 were females and 1064 were males. The nutritional history and clinical presentation of female patients was different: they consumed less food and had a greater loss of appetite than the male population. Male patients had higher risk for mortality at 180 d [27% compared with 19%; adjusted hazards ratio (HR): 1.35; 95% CI: 1.12, 1.63] and further adverse clinical outcomes. However, there was no difference in the effect of nutritional support on mortality among female and male patients (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.27, compared with HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.54, 1.21, respectively; P-interaction = 0.939). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this multicenter randomized trial suggest that multimorbid female inpatients have a different clinical presentation and are more prone to loss of appetite and reduced daily dietary intake than male inpatients. Importantly, the favorable response to nutritional interventions was similar in both sexes. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02517476.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Red cell distribution width (RDW) has been proposed as a surrogate marker for acute and chronic diseases and may be influenced by nutritional deficits. We assessed the prognostic value of RDW regarding clinical outcomes and nutritional treatment response among medical inpatients at nutritional risk. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of EFFORT, a randomized, controlled, prospective, multicenter trial investigating the effects of nutritional support in patients at nutritional risk in eight Swiss hospitals. We examined the association between RDW and mortality in regression analysis. RESULTS: Among 1,244 included patients (median age 75 years, 46.6 % female), high RDW (≥15 %) levels were found in 38 % of patients (n = 473) with a significant association of higher malnutrition risk [OR 1.48 (95%CI 1.1 to 1.98); p = 0.009]. Patients with high RDW had a more than doubling in short-term (30 days) mortality risk [adjusted HR 2.12 (95%CI 1.44 to 3.12); p < 0.001] and a signficant increase in long-term (5 years) mortality risk [adjusted HR 1.73 (95%CI 1.49 to 2.01); p < 0.001]. Among patients with high RDW, nutritional support reduced morality within 30 days [adjusted OR 0.56 (95%CI 0.33 to 0.96); p = 0.035], while the effect of the nutritional intervention in patients with low RDW was markedly smaller. CONCLUSIONS: Among medical patients at nutritional risk, RDW correlated with several nutritional parameters and was a strong prognostic marker for adverse clinical outcomes at short- and long-term, respectively. Patients with high baseline RDW levels also showed a strong benefit from the nutritional intervention. Further research is needed to understand whether monitoring of RDW over time severs as a nutritional biomarker to assess effectiveness of nutritional treatment in the long run. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02517476.
