A randomised, feasibility trial of an Exercise and Nutrition-based Rehabilitation programme (ENeRgy) in people with cancer

From Wiley via Jisc Publications RouterErna Haraldsdottir - ORCID: 0000-0003-4891-0743 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4891-0743Background: Despite rehabilitation being increasingly advocated for people living with incurable cancer, there is limited evidence supporting efficacy or component parts. The progressive decline in function and nutritional in this population would support an approach that targets these factors. This trial aimed to assess the feasibility of an exercise and nutrition based rehabilitation programme in people with incurable cancer. Methods: We randomized community dwelling adults with incurable cancer to either a personalized exercise and nutrition based programme (experimental arm) or standard care (control arm) for 8 weeks. Endpoints included feasibility, quality of life, physical activity (step count), and body weight. Qualitative and health economic analyses were also included. Results: Forty‐five patients were recruited (23 experimental arm, 22 control arm). There were 26 men (58%), and the median age was 78 years (IQR 69–84). At baseline, the median BMI was 26 kg/m2 (IQR: 22–29), and median weight loss in the previous 6 months was 5% (IQR: −12% to 0%). Adherence to the experimental arm was >80% in 16/21 (76%) patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the following between trial arms: step count − median % change from baseline to endpoint, per trial arm (experimental −18.5% [IQR: −61 to 65], control 5% [IQR: −32 to 50], P = 0.548); weight − median % change from baseline to endpoint, per trial arm (experimental 1%[IQR: −3 to 3], control −0.5% [IQR: −3 to 1], P = 0.184); overall quality of life − median % change from baseline to endpoint, per trial arm (experimental 0% [IQR: −20 to 19], control 0% [IQR: −23 to 33], P = 0.846). Qualitative findings observed themes of capability, opportunity, and motivation amongst patients in the experimental arm. The mean incremental cost of the experimental arm versus control was £‐319.51 [CI −7593.53 to 6581.91], suggesting the experimental arm was less costly. Conclusions: An exercise and nutritional rehabilitation intervention is feasible and has potential benefits for people with incurable cancer. A larger trial is now warranted to test the efficacy of this approach.12pubpub

A systematic review examining nutrition support interventions in patients with incurable cancer.

From PubMed via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2019-03-14, accepted 2019-07-16Publication status: aheadofprintRecent guidelines by the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) have advocated increased attention to nutritional support in all patients with cancer; however, little is known about the optimal type of nutritional intervention. The aim of this review was to assess the current evidence for nutrition support in patients with incurable cancer. This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Embase, MEDLINE and CINAHL were searched from 1990 to 2018. Evidence was appraised using a modified risk of bias table, based on guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Sixty studies were assessed of which twelve met the eligibility criteria. Eleven studies examined body composition, with six studies reporting improvements in weight. Six studies examined nutritional status with three studies reporting an improvement. Nine studies examined nutritional intake with six showing improvements including significant improvements in dietary and protein intake. Ten studies examined quality of life, with six studies reporting improvements following intervention. The most common nutritional interventions examined were nutrition counselling and dietary supplementation. There is moderate quality evidence to support the need for increased attention to nutrition support in patients with incurable cancer; however, despite some statistically significant results being reported, the clinical effects of them were small. Key questions remain as to the optimal timing for these interventions to be implemented (e.g. cachexia stage, illness stage and timing with anticancer therapy) and the most appropriate endpoint measures

A systematic review examining nutrition support interventions in patients with incurable cancer

Purpose: Recent guidelines by the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) have advocated increased attention to nutritional support in all patients with cancer: however, little is known about the optimal type of nutritional intervention. The aim of this review was to assess the current evidence for nutrition support in patients with incurable cancer. Methods: This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. EMBASE, Medline and CINAHL were searched from 1990-2018. Evidence was appraised using a modified risk of bias table, based on guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Results: Sixty studies were assessed of which twelve met the eligibility criteria. Eleven studies examined body composition, with six studies reporting improvements in weight. Six studies examined nutritional status with three studies reporting an improvement. Nine studies examined nutritional intake with six showing improvements including significant improvements in dietary and protein intake. Ten studies examined quality of life, with six studies reporting improvements following intervention. The most common nutritional interventions examined were nutrition counselling and dietary supplementation. Conclusions: There is moderate quality evidence to support the need for increased attention to nutrition support in patients with incurable cancer; however, despite some statistically significant results being reported the clinical effects of them were small. Key questions remain as to the optimal timing for these interventions to be implemented (e.g. cachexia stage, illness stage, timing with anticancer therapy) and the most appropriate endpoint measures.This work was financially supported by the Nancie Massey Charitable Trust, Miss M B Reekie’s Charitable Trust and the P F Charitable Trust.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-04999-428pubpu

The surgical safety checklist and patient outcomes after surgery: a prospective observational cohort study, systematic review and meta-analysis

© 2017 British Journal of Anaesthesia Background: The surgical safety checklist is widely used to improve the quality of perioperative care. However, clinicians continue to debate the clinical effectiveness of this tool. Methods: Prospective analysis of data from the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), an international observational study of elective in-patient surgery, accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature. The exposure was surgical safety checklist use. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcome was postoperative complications. In the ISOS cohort, a multivariable multi-level generalized linear model was used to test associations. To further contextualise these findings, we included the results from the ISOS cohort in a meta-analysis. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: We included 44 814 patients from 497 hospitals in 27 countries in the ISOS analysis. There were 40 245 (89.8%) patients exposed to the checklist, whilst 7508 (16.8%) sustained ≥1 postoperative complications and 207 (0.5%) died before hospital discharge. Checklist exposure was associated with reduced mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.49 (0.32–0.77); P\u3c0.01], but no difference in complication rates [OR 1.02 (0.88–1.19); P=0.75]. In a systematic review, we screened 3732 records and identified 11 eligible studies of 453 292 patients including the ISOS cohort. Checklist exposure was associated with both reduced postoperative mortality [OR 0.75 (0.62–0.92); P\u3c0.01; I2=87%] and reduced complication rates [OR 0.73 (0.61–0.88); P\u3c0.01; I2=89%). Conclusions: Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine

Prospective observational cohort study on grading the severity of postoperative complications in global surgery research

Background The Clavien–Dindo classification is perhaps the most widely used approach for reporting postoperative complications in clinical trials. This system classifies complication severity by the treatment provided. However, it is unclear whether the Clavien–Dindo system can be used internationally in studies across differing healthcare systems in high- (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods This was a secondary analysis of the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), a prospective observational cohort study of elective surgery in adults. Data collection occurred over a 7-day period. Severity of complications was graded using Clavien–Dindo and the simpler ISOS grading (mild, moderate or severe, based on guided investigator judgement). Severity grading was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data are presented as frequencies and ICC values (with 95 per cent c.i.). The analysis was stratified by income status of the country, comparing HICs with LMICs. Results A total of 44 814 patients were recruited from 474 hospitals in 27 countries (19 HICs and 8 LMICs). Some 7508 patients (16·8 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication, equivalent to 11 664 complications in total. Using the ISOS classification, 5504 of 11 664 complications (47·2 per cent) were graded as mild, 4244 (36·4 per cent) as moderate and 1916 (16·4 per cent) as severe. Using Clavien–Dindo, 6781 of 11 664 complications (58·1 per cent) were graded as I or II, 1740 (14·9 per cent) as III, 2408 (20·6 per cent) as IV and 735 (6·3 per cent) as V. Agreement between classification systems was poor overall (ICC 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·20 to 0·55), and in LMICs (ICC 0·23, 0·05 to 0·38) and HICs (ICC 0·46, 0·25 to 0·59). Conclusion Caution is recommended when using a treatment approach to grade complications in global surgery studies, as this may introduce bias unintentionally

Critical care admission following elective surgery was not associated with survival benefit: prospective analysis of data from 27 countries

This was an investigator initiated study funded by Nestle Health Sciences through an unrestricted research grant, and by a National Institute for Health Research (UK) Professorship held by RP. The study was sponsored by Queen Mary University of London