Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary and transitional nutritional intervention compared with standard care on health-related quality of life among acutely admitted medical patients aged ≥65 years with malnutrition or risk of malnutrition: A randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND & AIM: Malnutrition, risk of malnutrition, and risk factors for malnutrition are prevalent among acutely admitted medical patients aged ≥65 years and have significant health-related consequences. Consequently, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary and transitional nutritional intervention on health-related quality of life compared with standard care. METHODS: The study was a block randomized, observer-blinded clinical trial with two parallel arms. The Intervention Group was offered a multidisciplinary transitional nutritional intervention consisting of dietary counselling and six sub-interventions targeting individually assessed risk factors for malnutrition, while the Control Group received standard care. The inclusion criteria were a Mini Nutritional Assessment Short-Form score ≤11, age ≥65 years, and an acute admittance to the Emergency Department. Outcomes were assessed on admission and 8 and 16 weeks after hospital discharge. The primary outcome was the difference between groups in change in health-related quality of life (assessed by the EuroQol-5D-5L) from baseline to 16 weeks after discharge. The secondary outcomes were difference in intake of energy and protein, well-being, muscle strength, and body weight at all timepoints. RESULTS: From October 2018 to April 2021, 130 participants were included. Sixteen weeks after discharge, 29% in the Intervention Group and 19% in the Control Group were lost to follow-up. Compliance varied between the sub-interventions targeting nutritional risk factors and was generally low after discharge, ranging from 0 to 61%. No difference was found between groups on change in health-related quality of life or on well-being, muscle strength, and body weight at any timepoint, neither using the intention-to-treat analysis nor the per-protocol analysis. The protein intake was higher in the Intervention Group during hospitalization (1.1 (Standard Deviation (SD) 0.4) vs 0.8 (SD 0.5) g/kg/day, p = 0.0092) and 8 weeks after discharge (1.2 (SD 0.5) vs 0.9 (0.4) g/kg/day, p = 0.0025). The percentual intake of calculated protein requirements (82% (SD 24) vs 61% (SD 32), p = 0.0021), but not of calculated energy requirements (89% (SD 23) vs 80% (SD 37), p = 0.2), was higher in the Intervention Group than in the Control Group during hospitalization. Additionally, the Intervention Group had a significantly higher percentual intake of calculated protein requirements (94% (SD 41) vs 74% (SD 30), p = 0.015) and calculated energy requirements (115% (SD 37) vs 94% (SD 31), p = 0.0070) 8 weeks after discharge. The intake of energy and protein was comparable between the groups 16 weeks after discharge. CONCLUSION: We found no effect of a multidisciplinary and transitional nutritional intervention for acutely admitted medical patients aged ≥65 years with malnutrition or risk of malnutrition on our primary outcome, health-related quality of life 16 weeks after discharge. Nor did the intervention affect the secondary outcomes, well-being, muscle strength, and body weight from admission to 8 or 16 weeks after discharge. However, the intervention improved energy and protein intake during hospitalization and 8 weeks after discharge. Low compliance with the intervention after discharge may have compromised the effect of the intervention. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT03741283).