The influence of patients’ nutritional risk, nutritional status, and energy density in MEDPass versus conventional administration of oral nutritional supplements – A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

ObjectivesThe clinical influence of nutritional risk, nutritional status, and energy density of oral nutritional supplements (ONS) in MEDPass versus conventional administration of ONS is currently unknown. The aim of this analysis was to examine whether these variables have an impact on clinical outcomes. MethodsSecondary analysis of the intention to treat dataset of the randomized controlled MEDPass Trial in geriatric and medical inpatients. Patients in the intervention group received 4 × 50 ml ONS during the medication rounds (MEDPass mode), while those in the control group received ONS in a non-standardized manner. The examined endpoints included energy and protein coverage, ONS intake, handgrip strength (HGS), weight, appetite nausea and 30-day mortality. Three subgroup analyses for NRS 2002 total score (3, 4 or 5−7 points), NRS 2002 impaired nutritional status score (0, 1, 2 or 3 points) and energy density of the ONS (1.5 kcal/mL or 2 kcal/mL) were performed using linear and logistic regression with interaction and mixed effect models. ResultsThe data of 202 patients (103 women and 99 men) at nutritional risk (NRS total 2002 score ≥3), mean (SD) age 82.2 (6.5) years were included. There was no significant difference between the groups in the primary endpoint energy coverage in all three subgroup analyses. There were also no significant differences between the groups in the secondary endpoints of protein coverage, ONS intake, HGS, weight, appetite, nausea, and 30-day mortality. ConclusionThe MEDPass mode of ONS administration was not superior to the conventional mode of administration in this study. ONS with high energy density (≥2 kcal/mL) should be offered since current evidence shows a tendency towards improved appetite, increased ONS and increased energy intake.