ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Long COVID is suggested to be present in 14 to 43% of COVID 19-survivors. Literature on this new condition states a need for a multidisciplinary approach including physical exercise and nutrition. The aim of the current pilot study is to investigate the feasibility of the proposed protocol to prepare for a randomized controlled study that addresses the effectiveness of a personalized multimodal treatment compared to standard physiotherapy. METHODS: This is a protocol of the UNLOCK (Nutrition and LOComotoric rehabilitation in long COVID) study, a pragmatic, single center, randomized controlled pilot trial with two groups. Patients with persisting symptoms related to a SARS-CoV-2 infection will receive either standard physiotherapy or a personalized multimodal treatment for a period of 12 weeks, consisting of individualized physical exercise program combined with individualized nutritional therapy. They will be followed-up at 6, 12, and 18 weeks after randomization. DISCUSSION: A multidisciplinary approach for dealing with long COVID is needed. Because of the lack of clear data and the fact that this is a very heterogenic group, we aim to prepare and optimize a randomized controlled study that addresses the effectiveness of a personalized multimodal treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05254301 (since February 24, 2022).
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Cachexia is an important outcome-modulating parameter in patients with cancer. In the context of a randomized controlled trial on cachexia and nutritional therapy, the TiCaCONCO (Tight Caloric Control in the Cachectic Oncologic Patient) trial, the contacts between patients with cancer and health care practitioners and oncologists were screened. The aim of this retrospective study was to identify in the charts the input of data on body weight (necessary to identify cachexia stage), relevant nutritional data, and nutritional interventions triggered or implemented by oncologists and dietitians. METHODS: In a tertiary, university oncology setting, over a time span of 8 mo (34 wk), the charts of patients admitted to an oncology, gastroenterology, or abdominal surgery unit were screened for the presence of information contributing to a cancer cachexia diagnosis. Data (patient characteristics, tumor type, and location) was gathered. RESULTS: We analyzed 9694 files. Data on body weight was present for >90% of patients. Of the 9694 screening, 118 new diagnoses of cancer were present (1.22% of patient contacts). Information on weight evolution or nutritional status was absent for 54 patients (46%). In contacts between oncologists and patients with cancer, at the time of diagnosis, cachexia was present in 50 patients (42%). In 7 of these patients (14%), no nutritional information was present in the notes. Of the 50 patients with cachexia, only 8 (16%) had a nutritional intervention initiated by the physician. Nutritional interventions were documented in the medical note in 11 patients (9%) in the overall study population. Dietitians made notes regarding nutrition and weight for 49 patients (42%). We could not demonstrate a difference in mortality between cachectic and non-cachectic patients, although numbers are small for analysis. CONCLUSION: Patients newly diagnosed with cancer are not systematically identified as being cachectic and if they are, interventions in the field of nutrition therapy are largely lacking. Important barriers exist between oncologists and dietitians, the former being mandatory to the success of a nutrition trial in cancer.