Individualised nutritional support in medical inpatients at nutritional risk: a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend the use of nutritional support during hospital stays for medical patients (patients not critically ill and not undergoing surgical procedures) at risk of malnutrition. However, the supporting evidence for this recommendation is insufficient, and there is growing concern about the possible negative effects of nutritional therapy during acute illness on recovery and clinical outcomes. Our aim was thus to test the hypothesis that protocol-guided individualised nutritional support to reach protein and caloric goals reduces the risk of adverse clinical outcomes in medical inpatients at nutritional risk. METHODS: The Effect of early nutritional support on Frailty, Functional Outcomes, and Recovery of malnourished medical inpatients Trial (EFFORT) is a pragmatic, investigator-initiated, open-label, multicentre study. We recruited medical patients at nutritional risk (nutritional risk screening 2002 [NRS 2002] score ≥3 points) and with an expected length of hospital stay of more than 4 days from eight Swiss hospitals. These participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either protocol-guided individualised nutritional support to reach protein and caloric goals (intervention group) or standard hospital food (control group). Randomisation was done with variable block sizes and stratification according to study site and severity of malnutrition using an interactive web-response system. In the intervention group, individualised nutritional support goals were defined by specialist dietitians and nutritional support was initiated no later than 48 h after admission. Patients in the control group received no dietary consultation. The composite primary endpoint was any adverse clinical outcome defined as all-cause mortality, admission to intensive care, non-elective hospital readmission, major complications, and decline in functional status at 30 days, and it was measured in all randomised patients who completed the trial. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02517476. FINDINGS: 5015 patients were screened, and 2088 were recruited and monitored between April 1, 2014, and Feb 28, 2018. 1050 patients were assigned to the intervention group and 1038 to the control group. 60 patients withdrew consent during the course of the trial (35 in the intervention group and 25 in the control group). During the hospital stay, caloric goals were reached in 800 (79%) and protein goals in 770 (76%) of 1015 patients in the intervention group. By 30 days, 232 (23%) patients in the intervention group experienced an adverse clinical outcome, compared with 272 (27%) of 1013 patients in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·64-0·97], p=0·023). By day 30, 73 [7%] patients had died in the intervention group compared with 100 [10%] patients in the control group (adjusted OR 0·65 [0·47-0·91], p=0·011). There was no difference in the proportion of patients who experienced side-effects from nutritional support between the intervention and the control group (162 [16%] vs 145 [14%], adjusted OR 1·16 [0·90-1·51], p=0·26). INTERPRETATION: In medical inpatients at nutritional risk, the use of individualised nutritional support during the hospital stay improved important clinical outcomes, including survival, compared with standard hospital food. These findings strongly support the concept of systematically screening medical inpatients on hospital admission regarding nutritional risk, independent of their medical condition, followed by a nutritional assessment and introduction of individualised nutritional support in patients at risk. FUNDING: The Swiss National Science Foundation and the Research Council of the Kantonsspital Aarau, Switzerland.

Nutritional risk screening (NRS 2002) is a strong and modifiable predictor risk score for short-term and long-term clinical outcomes: secondary analysis of a prospective randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: The Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002) identifies patients at risk of malnutrition. We studied the prognostic implications of this score with regard to short-term and long-term clinical outcomes in a well-characterised cohort of medical inpatients from a previous trial. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of an investigator-initiated, prospective randomised controlled multicenter trial in Switzerland (EFFORT) that compared the effects of an individualised nutritional support intervention with standard of care. We investigated associations between admission NRS and several short-term and long-term outcomes using multivariable regression analyses. RESULTS: Of the 2028 patients, 31% had an NRS of 3, 38% of 4 and 31% of ≥5 points, and 477 (24%) died during the 180 days of follow-up. For each point increase in NRS, we found a stepwise increase in risk of 30-day mortality (adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.22 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.48), p = 0.048) and 180-day mortality (adjusted HR 1.37 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.55), p < 0.001). NRS was associated with length of hospital stay (adjusted difference of 0.60 days per NRS point increase, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.97, p = 0.002) and functional outcomes at 180 days (adjusted decrease in Barthel index of -4.49 points per NRS point increase, 95%CI -6.54 to -2.45, p < 0.001). In a subgroup analysis, associations of NRS and short-term adverse outcomes were less pronounced in patients receiving nutritional support (intervention group) compared to control group patients (adjusted HR for 30-day mortality 1.12 [95%CI 0.83 to 1.52, p = 0.454] vs. 1.33 [95%CI 1.02 to 1.72, p = 0.032]). CONCLUSION: The NRS is a strong and independent risk score for malnutrition-associated mortality and adverse outcomes over 180 days. Our data provide strong evidence that the nutritional risk, however, is modifiable and can be reduced by the provision of adequate nutritional support.