Prevalence of Nutritional Risk at Admission in Internal Medicine Wards in Portugal: The Multicentre Cross-Sectional ANUMEDI Study

Introduction: Disease-related undernutrition is highly prevalent and requires timely intervention. However, identifying undernutrition often relies on physician judgment. As Internal Medicine wards are the backbone of the hospital setting, insight into the prevalence of nutritional risk in this population is essential. We aimed to determine the prevalence of nutritional risk in Internal Medicine wards, to identify its correlates, and to assess the agreement between the physicians' impression of nutritional risk and evaluation by Nutritional Risk Screening 2002. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional multicentre study was performed in Internal Medicine wards of 24 Portuguese hospitals during 2017. Data on demographics, previous hospital admissions, primary diagnosis, and Charlson comorbidity index score were collected. Nutritional risk at admission was assessed using Nutritional Risk Screening 2002. Agreement between physicians' impression of nutritional risk and Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 was tested by Cohen's kappa. Results: The study included 729 participants (mean age 74 +/- 14.6 years, 51% male). The main reason for admission was respiratory disease. Mean Charlson comorbidity index score was 5.8 +/- 2.8. Prevalence of nutritional risk was 51%. Nutritional risk was associated with admission during the previous year (odds ratio = 1.65, 95% confidence interval: 1.22 - 2.24), solid tumour with metastasis (odds ratio = 4.73, 95% confidence interval: 2.06 - 10.87), any tumour without metastasis (odds ratio = 2.04, 95% confidence interval:1.24 - 3.34), kidney disease (odds ratio = 1.83, 95% confidence interval: 1.21 - 2.75), peptic ulcer (odds ratio = 2.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.10 - 4.25), heart failure (odds ratio = 1.51, 95% confidence interval: 1.11 - 2.04), dementia (odds ratio = 3.02, 95% confidence interval: 1.96 - 4.64), and cerebrovascular disease (odds ratio = 1.62, 95% confidence interval: 1.12 - 2.35). Agreement between physicians' evaluation of nutritional status and Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 was weak (Cohen's kappa = 0.415, p < 0.001). Discussion: Prevalence of nutritional risk in the Internal Medicine population is very high. Admission during the previous year and multiple comorbidities increase the odds of being at-risk. Subjective physician evaluation is not appropriate for nutritional screening. Conclusion: The high prevalence of at-risk patients and poor subjective physician evaluation suggest the need to implement mandatory nutritional screening

Diagnostic accuracy of the PG-SGA short form and NRS 2002 in internal medicine ward

Rationale: The PG-SGA is a validated instrument to assess malnutrition and its risk factors. Its patient component, i.e. the PG-SGA Short Form (SF), can be used as screening instrument. In this multicenter study, we aimed to assess diagnostic accuracy of the PG-SGA SF and NRS 2002, in patients at the Internal Medicine ward.Methods: In 192 patients (76.0±13.5 years; 53% female) in 9 Portuguese internal medicine wards, malnutrition risk was assessed by PG-SGA SF and NRS 2002. PG-SGA SF ≤8 was defined as low/medium malnutrition risk and NRS 2002 ≤2 as low risk. PG-SGA SF ≥9 and NRS 2002 ≥3 were defined as high malnutrition risk. Nutritional status was assessed by the full PG-SGA (reference method). Malnutrition was defined as PG-SGA Stage B (moderate/suspected malnutrition) or Stage C (severely malnourished). Diagnostic accuracy was tested by sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and receiver operating curve. Agreement between PG-SGA and NRS-2002 was tested by McNemar’s test and Cohen’s kappa (κ).Results: Forty-six % and 53% were categorized as at risk of malnutrition by PG-SGA SF and NRS 2002, respectively. In total, 55% were malnourished. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of PG-SGA SF and NRS 2002 were 0.84, 1.00, 1.00, 0.83 and 0.74, 0.74, 0.77 and 0.70, respectively. Area under curve of PG-SGA SF and NRS 2002 was 0.987 and 0.778 respectively. McNemar’s test showed no significant disagreement (p=0.86) between PG-SGA SF and NRS 2002. Cohen’s kappa showed weak agreement (κ=0.492; p<0.001) (Table 1).Conclusion: Our findings indicate that in patients at the internal medicine ward, PG-SGA SF shows better diagnostic accuracy than NRS 2002, i.e. better sensitivity and specificity

Diagnostic accuracy of the PG-SGA short form and NRS 2002 in internal medicine ward

Rationale: The PG-SGA is a validated instrument to assess malnutrition and its risk factors. Its patient component, i.e. the PG-SGA Short Form (SF), can be used as screening instrument. In this multicenter study, we aimed to assess diagnostic accuracy of the PG-SGA SF and NRS 2002, in patients at the Internal Medicine ward.Methods: In 192 patients (76.0±13.5 years; 53% female) in 9 Portuguese internal medicine wards, malnutrition risk was assessed by PG-SGA SF and NRS 2002. PG-SGA SF ≤8 was defined as low/medium malnutrition risk and NRS 2002 ≤2 as low risk. PG-SGA SF ≥9 and NRS 2002 ≥3 were defined as high malnutrition risk. Nutritional status was assessed by the full PG-SGA (reference method). Malnutrition was defined as PG-SGA Stage B (moderate/suspected malnutrition) or Stage C (severely malnourished). Diagnostic accuracy was tested by sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and receiver operating curve. Agreement between PG-SGA and NRS-2002 was tested by McNemar’s test and Cohen’s kappa (κ).Results: Forty-six % and 53% were categorized as at risk of malnutrition by PG-SGA SF and NRS 2002, respectively. In total, 55% were malnourished. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of PG-SGA SF and NRS 2002 were 0.84, 1.00, 1.00, 0.83 and 0.74, 0.74, 0.77 and 0.70, respectively. Area under curve of PG-SGA SF and NRS 2002 was 0.987 and 0.778 respectively. McNemar’s test showed no significant disagreement (p=0.86) between PG-SGA SF and NRS 2002. Cohen’s kappa showed weak agreement (κ=0.492; p<0.001) (Table 1).Conclusion: Our findings indicate that in patients at the internal medicine ward, PG-SGA SF shows better diagnostic accuracy than NRS 2002, i.e. better sensitivity and specificity