Nutritional prehabilitation in head and neck cancer: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Prehabilitation affords an opportunity to support the management of malnutrition that is strongly associated with head and neck cancer. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the components of nutritional prehabilitation interventions and their effects on nutritional and health outcomes in head and neck cancer patients. METHODS: A comprehensive search was completed within Medline (including PubMed), CINHAL, Cochrane database, EMBASE, PRoQUEST, clinical trials registries, and grey literature to identify studies involving a nutritional intervention pre-treatment in head and neck cancer patients receiving any form of curative therapy. Nutritional intervention was defined as a specified period pre-treatment and outcome measures had to include assessment of nutritional status or body composition. Quality of included studies was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias 2. RESULTS: From 557 identified studies, two met the inclusion criteria. Due to the low number of studies, a meta-analysis was not indicated. Both studies conducted a nutritional intervention using an "enriched formula" in malnourished patients prior to surgery. Neither study reported the intervention was effective for reducing weight loss, physical function, surgical complications, or length of stay versus the comparison. CONCLUSION: There is limited nutritional prehabilitation research within head and neck cancer. An "enriched formula" provided in the prehabilitation period appears no more advantageous than routine standard nutritional formula in mitigating against the weight loss experienced in malnourished head and neck patient. Due to the malnutrition risks on diagnosis and the negative impact of poor nutritional status on clinical and functional outcomes, robust nutritional prehabilitation research is required to inform clinical practice.

A Review of Nutrition Support Guidelines for Individuals with or Recovering from COVID-19 in the Community.

COVID-19 negatively impacts nutritional status and as such identification of nutritional risk and consideration of the need for nutrition support should be fundamental in this patient group. In recent months, clinical nutrition professional organisations across the world have published nutrition support recommendations for health care professionals. This review summarises key themes of those publications linked to nutrition support of adults with or recovering from COVID-19 outside of hospital. Using our search criteria, 15 publications were identified from electronic databases and websites of clinical nutrition professional organisations, worldwide up to 19th June 2020. The key themes across these publications included the importance in the community setting of: (i) screening for malnutrition, which can be achieved by remote consultation; (ii) care plans with appropriate nutrition support, which may include food based strategies, oral nutritional supplements and referral to a dietitian; (iii) continuity of nutritional care between settings including rapid communication at discharge of malnutrition risk and requirements for ongoing nutrition support. These themes, and indeed the importance of nutritional care, are fundamental and should be integrated into pathways for the rehabilitation of patients recovering from COVID-19.

Ready-Made Oral Nutritional Supplements Improve Nutritional Outcomes and Reduce Health Care Use-A Randomised Trial in Older Malnourished People in Primary Care.

Large trials assessing oral nutritional supplements (ONS) and dietary advice (DA) in primary care are lacking. This study examined effects of ONS + DA versus DA on intake, weight, QoL, healthcare use and satisfaction in malnourished free-living older people. Three hundred and eight people (71.5 ± 10.7y) were randomised to receive ONS + DA (n154) or DA (n154) for 12 weeks. At baseline, 4, 8, 12 weeks, intake, weight, QoL, healthcare use and satisfaction were measured. ONS + DA group (mean daily intake ONS 480 kcal; 21 g protein; 80% compliance) had significantly greater total energy and protein intakes (+401 kcal/d, p < 0.001; +15 g/d, p < 0.001) and weight gain (+0.8 kg; p < 0.001) compared to DA. QoL improved in both groups over time with a significant improvement in index with ONS + DA (p = 0.009). Significantly more participants found ONS + DA made a difference for them (p = 0.011), but no differences were found between groups using Euroqol. Compared to DA, healthcare use reduced with ONS + DA, (HCP visits by 34%, emergency admissions 50%, LOS 62%). Acceptability of both interventions was high (ONS 96%, DA 95%), with significantly more participants satisfied with ONS (89%) than DA (73%) (p = 0.009). This trial in primary care indicates that ONS are acceptable, make a difference to patients, significantly improve intake and weight, and reduce health care use with potential savings.

'Self-screening' for malnutrition with an electronic version of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool ('MUST') in hospital outpatients: concurrent validity, preference and ease of use.

Self-screening using an electronic version of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool ('MUST') has been developed but its implementation requires investigation. A total of 100 outpatients (mean age 50 (sd 16) years; 57 % male) self-screened with an electronic version of 'MUST' and were then screened by a healthcare professional (HCP) to assess concurrent validity. Ease of use, time to self-screen and prevalence of malnutrition were also assessed. A further twenty outpatients (mean age 54 (sd 15) years; 55 % male) examined preference between self- screening with paper and electronic versions of 'MUST'. For the three-category classification of 'MUST' (low, medium and high risk), agreement between electronic self-screening and HCP screening was 94 % (κ=0·74, se 0·092; P<0·001). For the two-category classification (low risk; medium+high risk) agreement was 96 % (κ=0·82, se 0·085; P<0·001), comparable with the previously reported paper-based self-screening. In all, 15 % of patients categorised themselves 'at risk' of malnutrition (5 % medium, 10 % high). Electronic self-screening took 3 min (sd 1·2 min), 40 % faster than previously reported for the paper-based version. Patients found the tool easy or very easy to understand (99 %) and complete (98 %). Patients that assessed both tools found the electronic tool easier to complete (65 %) and preferred it (55 %) to the paper version. Electronic self-screening using 'MUST' in a heterogeneous group of hospital outpatients is acceptable, user-friendly and has 'substantial to almost-perfect' agreement with HCP screening. The electronic format appears to be as agreeable and often the preferred format when compared with the validated paper-based 'MUST' self-screening tool.