Oral nutritional interventions in frail older people who are malnourished or at risk of malnutrition: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition worsens the health of frail older adults. Current treatments for malnutrition may include prescribed oral nutritional supplements, which are multinutrient products containing macronutrients and micronutrients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oral nutritional supplements (with or without other dietary interventions) in frail older people who are malnourished or at risk of malnutrition. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and grey literature were searched from inception to 13 September 2021. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oral nutritional supplements in frail older people (aged ≥ 65 years) who are malnourished or at risk of malnutrition (defined as undernutrition as per National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines). Meta-analysis and network meta-analysis were undertaken, where feasible, along with a narrative synthesis. A cost-effectiveness review was reported narratively. A de novo model was developed using effectiveness evidence identified in the systematic review to estimate the cost-effectiveness of oral nutritional supplements. RESULTS: Eleven studies (n = 822 participants) were included in the effectiveness review, six of which were fully or partly funded by industry. Meta-analyses suggested positive effects of oral nutritional supplements compared with standard care for energy intake (kcal) (standardised mean difference 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 1.88; very low quality evidence) and poor mobility (mean difference 0.03, p < 0.00001, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.04; very low quality evidence) but no evidence of an effect for body weight (mean difference 1.31, 95% confidence interval -0.05 to 2.66; very low quality evidence) and body mass index (mean difference 0.54, 95% confidence interval -0.03 to 1.11; very low quality evidence). Pooled results for other outcomes were statistically non-significant. There was mixed narrative evidence regarding the effect of oral nutritional supplements on quality of life. Network meta-analysis could be conducted only for body weight and grip strength; there was evidence of an effect for oral nutritional supplements compared with standard care for body weight only. Study quality was mixed; the randomisation method was typically poorly reported. One economic evaluation, in a care home setting, was included. This was a well-conducted study showing that oral nutritional supplements could be cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that oral nutritional supplements may only be cost-effective for people with lower body mass index (< 21 kg/m2) using cheaper oral nutritional supplements products that require minimal staff time to administer. LIMITATIONS: The review scope was narrow in focus as few primary studies used frailty measures (or our proxy criteria). This resulted in only 11 included studies. The small evidence base and varied quality of evidence meant that it was not possible to determine accurate estimates of the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of oral nutritional supplements. Furthermore, only English-language publications were considered. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the review found little evidence of oral nutritional supplements having significant effects on reducing malnutrition or its adverse outcomes in frail older adults. FUTURE WORK: Future research should focus on independent, high-quality, adequately powered studies to investigate oral nutritional supplements alongside other nutritional interventions, with longer-term follow-up and detailed analysis of determinants, intervention components and cost-effectiveness. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020170906. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 51. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?: Malnutrition, in the form of undernutrition, is very common in frail older people. Dietary advice is recommended (e.g. adding nutrients to meals) for older adults who are malnourished, while powdered or liquid supplements (oral nutritional supplements) can be prescribed to those who are malnourished or at risk of becoming malnourished. In this study, we reviewed previous studies to see if oral nutritional supplements (as a form of dietary support) work at reducing malnutrition in frail older adults and whether or not they are value for money. WHAT DID WE DO?: We searched for studies up to September 2021 on frail older people who were at risk of malnutrition or were malnourished in care homes, hospitals or the community in any country. We included studies that measured malnutrition and the consequences of malnutrition, quality of life, survival, costs and hospitalisations. We assessed the difference in malnutrition between those receiving oral nutritional supplements and those receiving usual care or other dietary (or nutritional) interventions. We also looked at the value for money of oral nutritional supplements. WHAT DID WE FIND?: We found 12 studies (11 studies looking at whether the supplements worked and one study looking at value for money). Most of which were of low quality, and many were funded by industry. Studies often did not report on longer-term effects, or how older people felt about the supplements. There was no clear or strong evidence that oral nutritional supplements worked or were value for money in reducing malnutrition or its consequences (such as the ability to perform everyday tasks). WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?: There is weak evidence for oral nutritional supplements in frail older adults. Future high-quality studies should be independent, assess longer-term effects, and have better reporting on factors that influence the impacts of oral nutritional supplements.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oral nutritional supplements in frail older people who are malnourished or at risk of malnutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current management of malnutrition can include prescribed oral nutritional supplements (ONS); however, there is uncertainty whether these supplements are effective in people who are older (≥65 years) and frail. We assessed the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and adherence and acceptability of ONS in frail older people who are malnourished or at risk of malnutrition. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, five bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and CINAHL) and grey literature sources were searched from inception to Sept 13, 2021, to identify studies assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ONS (with or without other dietary interventions) in frail older people who are malnourished or at risk of malnutrition. Multiple reviewers independently did study screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Quality was assessed using version 1.0 of the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and the BMJ Drummond checklist was used to assess the quality of the included cost-effectiveness study. A meta-analysis was done for the effectiveness review; for the other reviews, a narrative synthesis approach was used. This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42020170906. FINDINGS: Of 8492 records retrieved and screened, we included 11 RCTs involving 822 participants, six of which were fully or partly funded by industry. For the majority of the outcomes for which meta-analyses were possible (11/12), Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessments suggested that the evidence was of very low certainty. Results suggested that ONS might have a slightly positive effect on energy (kcal) intake (standardised mean difference 1·02 [95% CI 0·15 to 1·88]; I2=87%; four studies), protein intake (standardised mean difference 1·67 [-0·03 to 3·37; I2=97%; four studies), and mobility (mean difference 0·03 [0·02 to 0·04]; I2=0%; four studies), compared with standard care. Narrative syntheses suggested that the effect of ONS on quality of life, compared with standard care, was mixed. In the identified studies, there was very little information related to active components, determinants, or acceptability of interventions. One economic evaluation, done in a care home setting, showed that ONS could be cost-effective. INTERPRETATION: We found little evidence of ONS reducing malnutrition or its associated adverse outcomes in older people who are frail. High-quality, non-industry-funded, adequately powered studies reporting on short-term and long-term health outcomes, determinants, and participant characteristics are needed. FUNDING: UK National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (NIHR128729).

Socioeconomic inequalities and adverse pregnancy outcomes in the UK and Republic of Ireland: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: There has been an unprecedented rise in infant mortality associated with deprivation in recent years in the United Kingdom (UK) and Republic of Ireland. A healthy pregnancy can have significant impacts on the life chances of children. The objective of this review was to understand the association between individual-level and household-level measures of socioeconomic status and adverse pregnancy outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Nine databases were searched (Medline, Embase, Scopus, ASSIA, CINAHL, PsycINFO, BNI, MIDRIS and Google Scholar) for articles published between 1999 and August 2019. Grey literature searches were also assessed. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies reporting associations between individual-level or household socioeconomic factors on pregnancy outcomes in the UK or Ireland. RESULTS: Among the 82 353 search results, 53 821 titles were identified and 35 unique studies met the eligibility criteria. Outcomes reported were neonatal, perinatal and maternal mortality, preterm birth, birth weight and mode of delivery. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. There were significantly increased odds of women from lower levels of occupation/social classes compared with the highest level having stillbirth (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.59, I298.62%), neonatal mortality (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.57, I297.09%), perinatal mortality (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.57, I298.69%), preterm birth (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.50, I270.97%) and low birth weight (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.61, I299.85%). Limitations relate to available data, unmeasured confounders and the small number of studies for some outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified consistent evidence that lower occupational status, especially manual occupations and unemployment, were significantly associated with increased risk of multiple adverse pregnancy outcomes. Strategies to improve pregnancy outcomes should incorporate approaches that address wider determinants of health to provide women and families with the best chances of having a healthy pregnancy and baby and to decrease pregnancy-related health inequalities in the general population. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42019140893.