Clinical question
Should any nutritional supplementation versus no supplementation be used for people with nutritional risk who are also at risk of pressure injuries?
Context
Population:
Intervention:
Comparison:
Main Outcomes:
Setting:
Background:
Conflicts on Interest:
People with nutritional risk who are at risk of pressure injuries
Any nutritional supplement
No nutritional supplement
Any clinical setting
Pressure Injury occurrence
None
Evidence to Decision Framework
(Click on the individual judgements for more information)
Summary of Judgements
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Yes
Moderate
Trivial
Very low
No important uncertainty or variability
Probably favors the intervention
Moderate costs
No included studies
Varies
Probably increased
Varies
Varies
1. Problem:
Is the problem (pressure injuries) a priority?
JUDGEMENT
No
Probably No
Probably Yes
Yes
Varies
Don’t Know
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
The problem of preventing pressure injuries is a significant priority to healthcare in most clinical settings.
In 2021, the Guideline Governance Group undertook a stakeholder survey on priority issues to address in the guideline. Receiving clinical guidance on nutritional interventions to prevent pressure injuries was rated as the highest priority by clinicians (median ranking 5/5) and rated as a high priority by researchers, industry representatives and people with or at risk of pressure injuries and their informal carers (median ranking for all these stakeholder groups 4/5).In an earlier survey conducted by the previous Guideline Governance Group in 2018,1 71.8% (275/383) of individuals with or at risk of PIs and 65.3% (555/850) of informal carers rated receiving information on diet and hydration as important or very important.
2. Desirable Effects:
How substantial are the desirable anticipated effects?
JUDGEMENT
Trivial
Small
Moderate
Large
Varies
Don’t Know
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
| Outcome | Nutritional supp. | No nutritional supp. | Difference | Relative effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PI occurrence | 251/3227 (7.8%) | 347/3281 (10.6%) | 24 fewer PIs per 1,000 (from 38 fewer to 9 fewer) |
OR 0.75 (95% CI 0.61-0.91) |
Outcome 1: PI Occurrence
The meta-analysis included 13 RCTs6-18 that compared any nutritional supplementation to no supplementation for people at nutrition risk who are also at risk of PIs. The nutritional supplements included a range of commercial nutritional formulas, and the amount of protein based on the individual’s needs. Participants were primarily older adults undergoing orthopaedic surgery. Some of the regimens included vitamins and mineral supplementation and one regimen included only protein supplementation. Most regimens were based on about 50% energy from carbohydrate, some were based on high protein delivery and some were described as disease-specific. Some of the regimens included vitamins and minerals, and one regimen included only protein.** Control interventions were generally described as a standard hospital diet.
The meta-analysis showed that taking a nutritional supplement might be associated with a lower rate of PI occurrence for people at PI and nutritional risk (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.91); however, there is very little confidence that the effect estimate represents a true effect and that using a nutritional supplement would lead to a reduction in PI occurrence.
** Regimens are described in the data extraction tables. Product names may have changed.
3. Undesirable Effects:
How substantial are the undesirable anticipated effects?
JUDGEMENT
Trivial
Small
Moderate
Large
Varies
Don’t Know
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
| Outcome | Nutritional supp. | No nutritional supp. | Difference | Relative effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mortality | 55/458 (12%) | 61/473 (12.89%) | No difference | OR 0.93 (95% CI 0.62-1.40) |
Mortality
A meta-analysis3 of 11 studies exploring nutritional supplements versus usual diet on a range of outcome measures (some of the studies reported PI occurrence) for people who underwent hip fracture survey reported that fewer deaths were associated with nutritional interventions, but the effect was small and non-significant (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.40, p = 0.74).
4. Overall certainty of evidence: What is the overall certainty of the evidence of effects?
JUDGEMENT
Very low
Low
Moderate
High
No included studies
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
| Outcome | Relative Importance | Certainty of Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| PI occurrence | CRITICAL | VERY LOW |
Outcome 1: PI occurrence
In a Delphi survey2 that developed a core outcomes et for PI prevention trials, the outcome of PI occurrence was rated as being of critical importance (score of 7-9).
Certainty of the evidence was very low. The evidence was downgraded twice for risk of bias based on critical appraisal in existing reviews.3-5 There was a high risk of selection, detection, performance and attrition bias across nine studies. Certainty was downgraded once for indirectness due to concerns about the duration of the intervention. In most of the included studies the nutrition intervention was delivered for only two weeks; only one study had an intervention period of more than 40 days. Final outcomes were often measured after six months. The mechanism by which two weeks of increased supplementation would achieve a six-month treatment effect is not clear.
5. Values:
Is there important uncertainty about or variability in how much people value the main outcomes?
JUDGEMENT
Important uncertainty or variability
Possibly important uncertainty or variability
Probably no important uncertainty or variability
No important uncertainty or variability
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
In a Delphi survey2 that developed a core outcomes et for PI prevention trials, the outcome of PI occurrence was rated as being of critical important (score of 7-9) by all types of stakeholders (health professionals, people with or at risk of a PI and their informal carers, industry representatives and researchers). Greater than 90% of the 158 participants rated this outcome measure as critically important.2
6. Balance of Effects:
Does the balance between desirable and undesirable effects favour the intervention or the comparison?
JUDGEMENT
Favors the comparison
Probably favors the comparison
Does not favor either the intervention or the comparison
Probably favors the intervention
Favors the intervention
Varies
Don’t know
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
In the Guideline Governance Group’s expert opinion, the moderate desirable effects probably outweigh the undesirable effects, noting there was no difference in the undesirable effects considered in the available meta-analysis.3
7. Resources Required:
How large are resource requirements (costs) of the intervention?
JUDGEMENT
Large costs
Moderate costs
Negligible costs and savings
Moderate savings
Large savings
Varies
Don’t know
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
In the Panel Group’s expert opinion, nutritional supplementation can be expensive, particularly for homeless people, people living in the community, people in long term institutional settings, and those without access to health insurance. This is a particular concern for people who require supplementation for longer duration. In acute care settings, particularly intensive care, nutritional supplements are usually funded within the costs of health care.
In the Guideline Governance Group’s expert opinion, the above costs represent moderate costs of implementing the nutritional supplementation.
8. Certainty of evidence of required resources:
What is the certainty of evidence of resource requirements (costs) of the intervention?
JUDGEMENT
Very low
Low
Moderate
High
No included studies
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
No included studies
9. Cost Effectiveness: Does the cost-effectiveness of the intervention favour the intervention or the comparison?
JUDGEMENT
Favors the comparison
Probably favors the comparison
Does not favor either the intervention or the comparison
Probably favors the intervention
Varies
No included studies
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
A systematic review19 of cost-effectiveness studies reported seven studies. Of these, three statistical modelling studies established that nutritional interventions are cost effective.20-22 However, four other studies23-26 reported lack of cost effectiveness for nutritional interventions for preventing PIs. The review notes that a failure to demonstrate an impact of the intervention on clinical outcomes is a limit of many economic evaluations.
In the most recently published cost modelling in the above review was conducted by Tuffaha et. al.22,27 The modelling was based on data from 5 RCTs, reported an estimated cost for providing oral nutritional support (including patient education, monitoring, and high protein oral supplements) for 12 months was associated with a cost saving of approximately AUD $425/person compared with standard nutrition and a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) increase of an average of 0.005. This evidence was of moderate quality and was but was based on data from up to 20 years old at the time of the study's publication.
Using a high protein oral nutritional supplement for older people undergoing surgery for a fractured hip10 was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay compared with using a standard hospital diet (24 days versus 40 days), but the risk of bias for this outcome measure was high.
The Guideline Governance Group considered the above information and noted that cost effectiveness is highly variable across geographic and clinical contexts.
10. Inequity:
What would be the impact of recommending the intervention on health inequity?
JUDGEMENT
Reduced
Probably reduced
Probably no impact
Probably increased
Increased
Varies
Don’t know
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
In the Panel Group’s expert opinion, people who are at higher risk of nutritional deficits are also more likely to be unable to access nutritional supplementation due to their social circumstances and the cost of interventions. This includes barriers to accessing a dietitian to evaluate the person’s nutritional needs.
In the Guideline Governance Group’s expert opinion, recommending nutritional supplementation would likely increase health inequity. There are barriers to accessing supplementation for many people depending on their geographic location and the clinical context.
11. Acceptability:
Is the intervention acceptable to key stakeholders?
JUDGEMENT
No
Probably no
Probably yes
yes
Varies
Don’t know
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
There is some evidence that oral nutritional supplements are acceptable to people who at risk of PIs. A meta-analysis3 of eight of the studies conducted in older adults undergoing hip fracture surgery reported that compliance with oral nutritional supplements was acceptable across the studies. An RCT9 reported that adherence to a prescribed oral nutritional supplement by acutely ill adults (n = 295) was approximately 60%, but increased in the second week of the intervention. The researchers surmised that acute illness might decrease a person's appetite, reducing acceptability of an oral nutritional supplement. When a high protein oral nutritional supplement was prescribed for older people undergoing surgery for a fractured hip10 the amount of oral intake was not different in compared to people who ate a standard hospital diet; there appeared to be no disapproval of the intervention.
In the Panel Group’s expert opinion, a wide range of factors influence acceptability of nutritional supplements. These include palatability of thickened supplements and altered foods (e.g. pureed or thickened) and the person’s ability to consume the volume of fluid required for some supplements.
In the Guideline Governance Group’s expert opinion, recommending nutritional supplementation would having varying acceptability from stakeholders.
12. Feasibility:
Is the intervention feasible to implement?
JUDGEMENT
No
Probably no
Probably yes
yes
Varies
Don’t know
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
In the Panel Group’s expert opinion, barriers to implementation include access to a dietitian to ensure the intervention can be individualized to the person’s needs. Nutritional supplementation is not available in many clinical and geographic contexts, and in some contexts there are rigid referral mechanisms to access dietitians and nutritional interventions.
In the Panel Group’s expert opinion, people living in the community may be unable to implement the recommendation due to lack of relevant knowledge to select an appropriate supplement.
In the Guideline Governance Group’s expert opinion, the feasibility of implementing a recommendation to provide nutritional supplementation varies. In some contexts (e.g. most acute care settings) access to nutritional supplementation and the processes that support implementation (e.g. screening for nutritional deficits, dietician review, access to products) is highly feasible. In other contexts (e.g., community settings, low resource communities) implementing a recommendation to provide nutritional supplementation would not be feasible.
