Should handgrip strength be considered when choosing the administration mode of oral nutritional supplements in geriatric patients? A secondary analysis of the MEDPass Trial.

OBJECTIVE It is important to individualize nutrition therapy and to identify whether certain patient groups benefit from a specific intervention such as oral nutritional supplements (ONS). This study investigated whether patients with weak handgrip strength (HGS) benefit better from ONS administration in the Medication Pass Nutritional Supplement Program (MEDPass) mode regarding the individual coverage of energy and protein requirements throughout their hospitalization. METHODS A secondary analysis of the intention-to-treat data set of the randomized controlled MEDPass trial was conducted. Weak HGS was defined as <27 kg for men and <16 kg for women. Linear mixed-effect models adjusted for the stratification factors energy density of ONS and nutritional risk screening 2002 score were used to address the aim of the study. RESULTS We included 188 participants. Energy and protein coverage did not differ between the patients with weak or normal HGS depending on ONS administration mode (P = 0.084, P = 0.108). Patients with weak HGS and MEDPass administration mode tended to have the lowest energy and protein coverage (estimated mean, 77.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 69.3%-85% and estimated mean, 95.1%; 95% CI, 85.3%-105%, respectively). Patients with weak HGS and conventional ONS administration had the highest energy and protein coverage (estimated mean, 90%; 95% CI, 82.8%-97.2% and estimated mean, 110.2%; 95% CI, 101.3%-119%, respectively). CONCLUSION No clear recommendations regarding the mode of ONS administration depending on HGS can be made. In clinical practice, appetite and satiety in patients with weak HGS should be monitored, and the ONS administration mode should be adjusted accordingly

Study protocol: register on the prognosis of acute symptomatic seizures (PROSA register)-A prospective multicenter observational study

Background Acute symptomatic epileptic seizures occur in close temporal relation to an acute disturbance of brain function. They are associated with a low risk of subsequent unprovoked seizures; thus, current guidelines recommend not to administer a long-term antiseizure medication; however, in clinical practice long-term secondary seizure prophylaxis is frequently initiated. The seizure prognosis after guideline-conform untreated or only briefly treated acute symptomatic seizures, is so far unknown. Hypothesis Following an acute symptomatic first epileptic seizure of structural etiology, the 1-year risk of subsequent unprovoked seizures is not higher than 25%, even if antiseizure medication was not applied or for a short period only. Methods The PROSE register is a single-arm, open, prospective, multicenter observational study. A total of 115 subjects aged 18 years or older with an acute symptomatic first epileptic seizure of structural etiology will be included if the seizure was not a status epilepticus. Intrahospital follow-up will be based on the hospital records. Telephone follow-up interviews will be conducted 3, 6, and 12 months after the acute symptomatic seizure. Discussion The PROSE register will shed light on current treatment practice of acute symptomatic seizures and the actual seizure outcome within 1 year. The results are assumed to support the current evidence that giving antiseizure medication for a longer period of time exceeding the acute phase of the underlying condition is unnecessary

Effects of remdesivir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 a systematic review and individual patient data meta- analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background Interpretation of the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of remdesivir in patients treated in hospital for COVID-19 is conflicting. We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of remdesivir compared with placebo or usual care in these patients, and whether treatment effects differed between prespecified patient subgroups. Methods For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and preprint servers from Jan 1, 2020, until April 11, 2022, for RCTs of remdesivir in adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19, and contacted the authors of eligible trials to request individual patient data. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at day 28 after randomisation. We used multivariable hierarchical regression-adjusting for respiratory support, age, and enrollment period-to investigate effect modifiers. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021257134. Findings Our search identified 857 records, yielding nine RCTs eligible for inclusion. Of these nine eligible RCTs, individual data were provided for eight, covering 10 480 patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (99% of such patients included in such RCTs worldwide) recruited between Feb 6, 2020, and April 1, 2021. Within 28 days of randomisation, 662 (12 center dot 5%) of 5317 patients assigned to remdesivir and 706 (14 center dot 1%) of 5005 patients assigned to no remdesivir died (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0 center dot 88, 95% CI 0 center dot 78-1 center dot 00, p=0 center dot 045). We found evidence for a credible subgroup effect according to respiratory support at baseline (pinteraction=0 center dot 019). Of patients who were ventilated-including those who received high-flow oxygen-253 (30 center dot 0%) of 844 patients assigned to remdesivir died compared with 241 (28 center dot 5%) of 846 patients assigned to no remdesivir (aOR 1 center dot 10 [0 center dot 88-1 center dot 38]; low-certainty evidence). Of patients who received no oxygen or low-flow oxygen, 409 (9 center dot 1%) of 4473 patients assigned to remdesivir died compared with 465 (11 center dot 2%) of 4159 patients assigned to no remdesivir (0 center dot 80 [0 center dot 70-0 center dot 93]; high-certainty evidence). No credible subgroup effect was found for time to start of remdesivir after symptom onset, age, presence of comorbidities, enrolment period, or corticosteroid use. Remdesivir did not increase the frequency of severe or serious adverse events. Interpretation This individual patient data meta-analysis showed that remdesivir reduced mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 who required no or conventional oxygen support, but was underpowered to evaluate patients who were ventilated when receiving remdesivir. The effect size of remdesivir in patients with more respiratory support or acquired immunity and the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir remain to be further elucidated.Peer reviewe