TOP NUTRITION NEWSLETTER VOLUME 3, NO 2: FEBRUARY 2000 Editorial This is the second issue of TOP NUTRITION
NEWSLETTER in 2000. In this issue the following topics are updated for your
interest.
Any comments or suggestions to include the
interesting topics are welcomed for future issues. Dr Shwe Win Editor
Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials: When the Gold in the Gold Standard Isn’t Pure Reference: J P E N 2000: Jan-Feb issue Dickens’ advice, which was given 140 years ago, is particularly relevant to assessing therapeutic interventions. The principles of evidence-based medicine tell us that the prospective randomized controlled trial (PRCT) is the gold standard of proof. The advantage of this methodology is that it creates a condition in which only one variable is altered. Any nonrandomized controlled trial requires the members of the two groups being compared to differ in at least two variables. The patients not only did or did not receive the intervention in question, but they also differ in the reason(s) why they did or did not receive it. In this issue of JPEN, Dr. Bozzetti and colleagues report the results of a PRCT that assessed the efficacy of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) in altering the outcome of malnourished patients undergoing surgery for intestinal cancer. They concluded that 10 days of preoperative TPN, which is then continued into the postoperative period, reduced the absolute complication rate of the surgery by about 20% and prevented mortality. There have been more than 30 trials of perioperative TPN published in the past two decades. The conclusions have not always agreed, as noted by these investigators. The casual reader may wonder why a PRCT addressing the same question does not always produce the same answer. Actually, the issue is more complex. PRCTs create very specific conditions. Not surprisingly, differences in study populations, nutritional formulations use, and outcomes measured, in addition to the role played by chance, are present. This is referred to as the heterogeneity of studies. Furthermore, not all PRCTs are created equal with regard to methodology, a consideration known as the quality of the study. This trial by Bozzetti and colleagues demonstrates some of the things that can go right, and that can go wrong, in a PRCT. When investigators or subjects know into which group assignment will occur, the observed treatment effect is usually larger. One important quality component of a PRCT is how well randomization allocation was concealed. Quasi-randomization, that is, the assignment of subjects to groups based on such things as patient identification number or day being seen, is less preferable. Although such an assignment might seem to be random, subtle factors arise. The investigator might look harder for a reason to exclude a sicker patient destined to enter the treatment arm. Patients may decide to enter, or not to enter, the trial based on what treatment they know they will receive. Higher quality studies use a true randomization method (eg, random numbers table) in which the assignment is safe from any preknowledge (eg, the use of opaque envelopes to prevent someone from holding it up to the light and ascertaining the assignment group). In this regard, Bozzetti and colleagues did appear to assign patients to one or the other group without any foreknowledge. They used a computer-generated list and a third person informed them of the allocation after the decision was made to enter that particular patient into the trial. Under ideal circumstances, trials should be blinded so neither the investigator nor the patient knows what treatment is being administered. Bias permeates all research endeavors, including the interpretation of seemingly objective outcome measurements. For example, did a chest x-ray really show an infiltrate or was the area in question only a confluence of shadows? From a practical perspective, it is impossible to blind the intervention of preoperative TPN. Bozzetti and colleagues did define, a priori, all of the complications that would be sought. Hence, all of the primary end points satisfied similar criteria. Nonetheless, the ultimate identification of a complication was, to some degree, a subjective decision made by individuals who could have known how the patient had been treated. A common shortcoming of many PRCTs is the lack of adequate numbers of patients to see a difference that truly exists, the type II error. A feature of better quality PRCTs is the a priori performance of a power calculation. In this computation, the investigator estimates the size of the treatment effect and decides how sure he or she wants to be that such a difference will not be missed with statistical tests. He or she then calculates the number of patients that will be required. Again, Bozzetti and coworkers did this. However, they based this calculation on a one-tailed test, which assumes that the intervention cannot cause harm. Furthermore, they ceased the trial before the estimated numbers had been admitted. As we have noted, a PRCT asks a specific question. In this case, the question being asked is whether TPN provided for 10 days preoperatively and carried out into the postoperative period is better than providing hypocaloric postoperative TPN alone. The study design did not include a true untreated control group. Could the differences between the two groups have been due to harmful treatment given to those controls? A recent analysis of perioperative PRCTs of TPN suggested that postoperative TPN increased the absolute complication rate by 10%. Then, there is the issue of intent-to-treat analysis. The randomization process occurs at the outset of a study; all of the patients who meet specific criteria are, in a chance fashion, assigned to one of the treatment arms. Rarely do all patients actually complete a trial. Nonetheless, they should be counted. If more seriously ill patients are removed from one group compared with the other, and only those who complete the study are counted, a bias is introduced. Bozzetti and his group initially randomly assigned 107 patients to the trial, but 17 of them were not analyzed. As the investigators point out in their discussion, the TPN patients who were removed from the trial were, on average, sicker than the controls who were removed. If the randomization was intact at the outset, the patients who remained in the TPN group had to be slightly less sick than were those in the control group. It is unlikely that this perturbation dramatically altered the results of the trial, but it could have magnified the treatment effect. For example, if one or two of the sicker patients who dropped out of the TPN arm died, the mortality rates in the two groups would be less dramatically different. The recent analysis of perioperative TPN suggested that while preoperative TPN did not influence mortality, it did reduce the absolute postoperative complication rate by 10%. The study by Bozzetti and associates agrees with this conclusion. Preoperative TPN, especially in malnourished patients, may indeed reduce the postoperative complication rate modestly. Unfortunately, the cost of the TPN may not be justified by the benefit achieved. The intervention would require an additional 10 days in the hospital for each patient. Bozzetti and colleagues claimed that the complication rate would be reduced by about 20%, although for the reasons noted, this estimate is probably overly optimistic. Even if it were true, the number of days needed to treat to prevent one complication would be five, so the cost of avoiding the one complication would be 50 hospital days for TPN.Because half of the complications would be minor ones, it is debatable whether, in an era of limited resources, such an expenditure (an order of magnitude greater than that estimated by Bozzetti et al) would be acceptable.
Protein-Energy Undernutrition Among Elderly Hospitalized Patients: A Prospective Study Reference: Nutrition in Clinical Practice 1999; December: ABSTRACT: Context: Numerous studies have identified strong correlations between the severity of nutritional deficits and an increased risk of subsequent morbid events among the hospitalized elderly, but whether inadequate nutrient intake during hospitalization contributes to such nutritional deficits or the risk of adverse outcomes is not known. Objectives: To identify the distribution of average daily nutrient intake among the nonterminally ill hospitalized elderly, ascertain what factors contribute to persistently low intakes, and determine whether the adequacy of nutrient intake correlates with the risk of mortality. Design: Prospective cohort study conducted from 1994 to 1997. Setting: University-affiliated Department of Veterans Affairs hospital. Patients: A total of 497 patients 65 years or older (mean [SD] age, 74 [6] years; 97% male; 86% white) with a length of stay of 4 days or more. Main Outcome Measures: Daily in-hospital nutrient intake, in-hospital mortality, and 90-day mortality. Results: A total of 102 patients (21%) had an average daily in-hospital nutrient intake of <50% of their calculated maintenance energy requirements. Admission illness severity, average length of stay, and admission albumin and prealbumin levels for this low nutrient group did not differ significantly from those of the remaining patients. However, the low nutrient group had lower mean (SD) discharge serum total cholesterol (154 [44] mg/dL [4 [1.1] mmol/L] vs 173 [42] mg/dL [4.5 [1.1] mmol/L]; p = .001), albumin (29.1 [6.7] vs 33.2 [6.1] g/L, p = .001), and prealbumin (162 [69] vs 205 [68] mg/L; p = .001) concentrations and a higher rate of in-hospital mortality (relative risk, 8.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.8 to 22.6) and 90-day mortality (relative risk, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.4 to 6.1). Contributing to the problem of inadequate nutrient intake, patients were frequently ordered to have nothing by mouth and were not fed by another route. Neither canned supplements nor nutrition support were used effectively. Conclusions: Throughout their hospitalization, many elderly patients were maintained on nutrient intakes far less than their estimated maintenance energy requirements, which may contribute to an increased risk of mortality. Given the difficulties reversing established nutritional deficits in the elderly, greater efforts should be made to prevent the development of such deficits during hospitalization. (JAMA 281:2013?2019, 1999) COMMENT: A prospective, observational study was conducted on patients (n = 497) over 65 years of age who were hospitalized >4 days to determine the average daily kilocalories intake compared with maintenance energy requirements, identify factors that contributed to low intakes, and assess whether the adequacy of nutrient intake was correlated with the risk of in-hospital and 90-day mortality. Overall, 102 patients (21%) had an average nutrient intake of <50% of their estimated needs. There was no difference between the low-intake group and all other patients at admission for illness severity, albumin, or prealbumin concentrations. The low-intake group appeared better nourished at admission, as evidenced by significantly greater body mass indexes, somatic protein, and fat stores, and had better self-assessment of health compared with all other patients. At discharge, the low-intake group had lower serum total cholesterol, albumin, and prealbumin concentrations; a higher rate of in-hospital and 90-day mortality; and were more likely to be functionally dependent at discharge compared with all other patients. Inadequate energy intake was associated with frequent orders for nothing by mouth and not being fed by another route. Neither parenteral nor enteral support was used effectively. This investigation is significant because it documents, using a prospective design with rigorous bedside assessment of nutrient intake, that despite practitioners’ ability for over 30 years to provide adequate nutrition support to virtually any patient, inadequate support continues for a significant proportion of elderly patients, which is associated with an increased risk of mortality.
|
![]()