Nutritional impairment, psychological health and quality of life among older adults with advanced cancer: A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Nutritional impairment is associated with treatment toxicity and worse overall survival in patients with cancer. We aimed to (1) evaluate the association of nutritional impairment with psychological health and quality of life (QOL) and (2) examine which measures of nutrition had the strongest association with psychological health and QOL among older adults receiving cancer treatment with palliative intent. METHODS: This secondary analysis was performed on baseline data from a nationwide cluster randomized clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02107443; PI: Mohile). Adults age ≥70 with advanced cancer and ≥1 geriatric assessment (GA) impairment were enrolled from 2014 to 2017. In line with geriatric oncology standards, we defined nutritional impairment as Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form (MNA-SF) ≤11, body mass index (BMI) <21 kg/m2, or >10% involuntary weight loss in the past 6 months. We conducted multivariable linear regressions to evaluate the association of nutritional impairment with each measure of psychological health and QOL: Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15, range 0-15), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7, range 0-21), NCCN Distress Thermometer (NCCN DT, range 0-10), and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G, range 0-108). Analyses were adjusted for patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and GA. RESULTS: Among 541 patients, the mean age was 77 (range 70-96) and 60% had nutritional impairment. Mean baseline scores: GDS-15 3.1 (SD 2.7), GAD-7 2.9 (SD 4.0), NCCN DT 2.9 (SD 2.7), and FACT-G 80 (SD 15). In the adjusted model, compared to those with no nutritional impairment, older adults with nutritional impairment had greater depression (ß = 0.79, 95% CI 0.36-1.23) and anxiety severity (ß = 0.86, 95% CI 0.19-1.53), and worse QOL (ß = -6.31, 95% CI -8.62 to -4.00). Of the measures of nutrition, MNA-SF ≤11 demonstrated the strongest associations with depression, anxiety, distress, and QOL. CONCLUSION: Nutritional impairment is associated with impaired psychological health and worse QOL. Clinicians should use the MNA-SF to screen older adults for nutritional impairment and offer tailored supportive interventions.

Post hoc analysis of food costs associated with Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension diet, whole food, plant-based diet, and typical baseline diet of individuals with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus in a nonrandomized crossover trial with meals provided.

BACKGROUND: Americans consume diets that fall short of dietary recommendations, and the cost of healthier diets is often cited as a barrier to dietary change. We conducted a nonrandomized crossover trial with meals provided utilizing 2 diets: Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) and whole food, plant-based (WFPB), and thus had intake data from baseline and both intervention diets. OBJECTIVES: Using actual diet records, describe food costs of baseline diets of individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) as well as therapeutic DASH and WFPB diets. METHODS: Three-day food records were collected and analyzed for each 7-d diet phase: baseline, DASH, and WFPB. Nutrient content was analyzed using the Nutrient Data System for Research and cost was determined using Fillet, an application to manage menu pricing. Food costs were calculated for each diet as consumed and adjusted to a standardized 1800 kcal/d. Ingredient-only costs of food away from home (FAFH) were approximated and analyzed. Costs were analyzed using linear mixed-effect models as a function of diet. RESULTS: Fifteen subjects enrolled; 12 completed all dietary phases. The baseline, DASH, and WFPB diets, as consumed, cost $15.72/d (95% CI; $13.91, $17.53), $12.74/d ($11.23, $14.25), and $9.78/d ($7.97, $11.59), respectively. When adjusted to an 1800 kcal/d intake, the baseline, DASH, and WFPB diets cost $15.69/d ($13.87, $17.52), $14.92/d ($13.59, $16.26), and $11.96/d ($10.14, $13.78), respectively. When approximated ingredient-only costs of FAFH were analyzed, as consumed baseline [$11.01 ($9.53, $12.49)] and DASH diets [$11.81 ($10.44, $13.18)] had similar costs; WFPB diet [$8.83 ($7.35, $10.31)] cost the least. CONCLUSIONS: In this short-term study with meals provided, the food costs of plant-predominant diets offering substantial metabolic health benefits were less than or similar to baseline food costs of adults with insulin-treated T2DM. Longer-term data without meal provision are needed for more generalizable results. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04048642.