Prevalence of Malnutrition and Influence of an Individualized Nutritional Support on the Nutritional Status of Cancer Patients

Soma Basu,Arambakkam Janardhanam Hemamalini
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ijnpnd.ijnpnd_81_24
2024-07-01
International Journal of Nutrition, Pharmacology, Neurological Diseases
Abstract:Background: Muscle mass loss, impaired dietary intake, and poor nutritional status are hallmarks of patients with cancer. Cancer-associated malnutrition can lead to several negative consequences, including poor prognosis, reduced survival, increased therapy toxicity, reduced tolerance and compliance to treatment, and diminished response to drugs. The main aim of this study is to understand the prevalence of malnutrition using Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition Criteria (GLIM Criteria) and evaluate the impact of tailor-made nutritional intervention on the nutritional status of patients with cancer. Methods and Material: An interventional prospective study was conducted among 100 adult hospitalized cancer patients. The study was based on the Nutrition Care Process model, where nutritional assessment was done using GLIM criteria and Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), and muscle mass was assessed using the Handgrip Dynamometer. Nutritional diagnosis was made based on assessment; nutritional intervention was provided through Individualized Nutritional Counseling & Oral Nutritional Support, and nutritional monitoring was done for patients during their stay in hospital using 24-hour daily dietary recall. Nutritional evaluation was done at the time of discharge using GLIM criteria, MUST, and Handgrip Strength (HGS). Data analysis was done using SPSS v24 statistical software (developed by IBM) to find out the Mean and Standard Deviation. Paired t test, Chi-square test, and Regression Analysis were used to analyze the qualitative variables. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. Results: The current study evaluated 100 participants among whom 26% of participants were malnourished as assessed by MUST and 22% participants had poor muscle strength. A paired t -test was performed and it was found that the calorie intake (1504.1 ± 158.7) and the protein intake (56.08±7.01) were almost double after the nutrition intervention. The difference was found to be highly statistically significant with P < 0.01. Thus, nutrition intervention significantly ( P < 0.01) improved calorie and protein intake. The overall mean MUST score at baseline was 0.39 which was reduced significantly ( P < 0.000) to 0.17 at the end of the study. The HGS improved significantly ( P < 0.000) from 10.02 to 25.51 after the nutrition intervention and it was evidenced by 2.5 times increase in HGS (25.51 ± 2.40) by the end of the study. Conclusion: Individualized nutritional support with continuous monitoring and counseling resulted in improvement in nutritional status as evidenced through their improved MUST score and HGS.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?