Taste alterations and oral discomfort in patients receiving chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Taste alterations (TA) and oral discomfort in cancer patients are neglected side effects of the disease and treatments. They contribute to poor appetite, decrease food intake and affect quality of life, leading to adverse outcomes such as malnutrition and depression. The study aimed to explore TAs in relation to other oral conditions causing discomfort in cancer patients. Additionally, the correlation between patients' acidity of saliva and experienced TAs and oral discomfort was evaluated. METHODS: A case study including 100 patients diagnosed with cancer receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy. Data were collected using two questionnaire forms: the Chemotherapy-induced Taste Alteration Scale (CiTAS) and an additional information questionnaire. Saliva samples were collected for each patient and measured with a pocket pH meter. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and comparisons were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis H test, Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: The prevalence of reported TAs was 93%. Patient age, oral discomfort and swallowing difficulty were found to be significant factors for experienced TAs (p < 0.05). No correlation between patients' acidity of saliva and reported TAs and oral discomfort was found. CONCLUSION: CiTAS proved to be a convenient tool to collect information about TAs in cancer patients. Using the CiTAS tool, a high prevalence (93%) of reported TAs in cancer patients receiving chemo- or immunotherapy was found. CiTAS provides a fast and cheap recognition of symptoms and causes of TAs that can be addressed.

"More2Eat" in patients at nutritional risk during hospital stay lowers the risk of three-month mortality.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Malnutrition is a common problem among hospitalized patients due to increased nutrient requirements and reduced food intake or uptake of nutrients. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to investigate the association of nutritional risk status (at or not at risk by NRS-2002) as well as energy and protein intake, use of oral nutritional supplements (ONS) and snack meals in at risk patients during hospitalization and adverse outcomes (length of stay (LOS), readmissions and mortality) at three-months follow-up. METHODS: Data were collected at baseline and at three-months follow-up in patients hospitalized at 31 units at a Danish University Hospital. Diet records were performed at baseline by using the nurses' quartile nutrition recording methods. Data about disease and clinical outcomes were collected from electronic medical records at baseline and three-months follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 318 patients were included. Patients at nutritional risk (n = 149, 47%) had higher risk of longer LOS (≥20 days (OR = 4.24 [1.81;9.95] and ≥30 days OR = 2.50 [1.22;5.14])), having one readmission (OR = 1.86 [1.15;3.01]) and death (OR = 2.56 [1.27;5.20]) compared to patients not at nutritional risk (n = 169, 53%). A longer LOS was associated with patients who achieved ≥75% of energy and protein requirements, consumed snack meals incl. and excl. oral nutritional supplements. Readmissions in patients at nutritional risk during the three-months were not associated with food intake during the index hospitalization. Mortality was observed in 43 of the 318 (13.5%) hospitalized patients. A lower mortality was associated with increased energy and protein intake in patients at nutritional risk. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate a longer LOS, higher readmission rate and increased mortality in patients at nutritional risk compared to patients not at risk. Patients at nutritional risk had lower risk of three-month mortality and longer LOS during index hospitalization with increased energy and protein intake. Readmissions in patients at nutritional risk were not affected by food intake. The association of nutritional risk with poorer outcomes indicates that good nutritional care including constant attention to food-intake during hospitalization can be beneficial regarding mortality.

Are nutritional sufficiency of ≥75% energy and protein requirements relevant targets in patients at nutritional risk? - A one month follow-up study.

BACKGROUND & AIM: Nutrient intake in patients at nutritional risk was recorded with the aim of reaching at least 75% of estimated requirements for energy and protein. However, the cutoff at 75% has only been sparsely investigated. The aim of this study was to re-evaluate the 75% cutoff of estimated energy and protein requirements among patients at or not at nutritional risk in relation to 30-day mortality and readmissions. METHODS: A 30-day follow-up study was performed among hospitalized patients in 31 units at a Danish University Hospital. Data was collected using the nurses' quartile nutrition registration method and electronic patient journals. All patients were screened using the NRS-2002 and classified as either at nutritional risk (NRS-2002, score ≥3) or not at nutritional risk (NRS-2002, score <3). Energy and protein requirements were estimated using weighted Harris-Benedict equation and 1.3 g/kg/day, respectively. RESULTS: In total, 318 patients were included in this study. Patients at nutritional risk were older, lower BMI, male, more comorbidities and a longer primary length of stay compared to patients not at nutritional risk (p < 0.05). After 30-day follow-up, mortality was higher among patients at risk (9.5% vs. 2.0%, p < 0.05). Patients at nutritional risk showed increased risk of mortality if they did not achieve 75% of estimated requirements (energy: OR = 8.08 [1.78; 36.79]; protein: OR = 3.40 [0.74; 15:53]). Furthermore, predicted probability of mortality decreased with increased energy and protein intakes. No significant associations were found for readmissions achieving 75% of estimated energy or protein requirements. A cutoff of 76-81% for energy and 58-62% for protein was equivalent with accepting a 6-8% mortality rate. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that an energy intake ≥75% of estimated requirement among patients at nutritional risk has a preventative effect regarding mortality within one month, but not for readmissions.

Optimizing protein and energy intake in hospitals by improving individualized meal serving, hosting and the eating environment.

OBJECTIVE: Optimizing protein and energy intake by food in nutritional risk patients is difficult. The aim of this study was to improve the ≥75% of energy and protein requirements. We would like to see nurses take on the role of hosting the nutritional-risk patients, including focusing on bringing nutrition to the forefront in the collaboration between nurses and patients. METHODS: This was an interventional study that included patients admitted to the Departments of Infectious Diseases, Hematology, and Heart-Lung Surgery in a baseline and follow-up investigation. It included 24-h food intake registrations (FRs) for 3 d consecutively, a questionnaire, and a semistructured patient interview. The interventions included in this study helped to improve the eating environment and serving, integrated nutrition into the nurse-patient welcome interview, and targeted individual preferences and challenges for eating. RESULTS: The study comprised 76 24-h FRs at baseline and 108 FRs at follow-up. The total group had improved food intake; 75% of individual energy requirements were met by (67.6% vs. 40%; P = 0.036) and the Heart-Lung Surgery group (85.7 vs. 38.5; P = 0.036). This was not reflected for protein (NS). Energy intake improved for the entire group, albeit not significantly (P = 0.862). Patients reported being happy with the interventions regarding individualized food serving, nurse communication, and improved meal environments. CONCLUSION: Only insignificant improvements to overall energy intake were seen in two of the three departments and in the overall group, and no statistical or clinically significant improvements to protein intake were observed. The relative risk of meeting 75% of energy requirements was improved in the overall group and in patients in the Department of Heart-Lung Surgery. This did not include the meeting of protein requirements. Improvements were welcomed by patients and staff. Focus on individualized nutrition from the nursing staff also improved.