Clinical Practice Guidelines in Nutrition Support: Can They Be Based on Randomized Clinical Trials?

Abstract

As rationing of health care services becomes an increasing reality, the pressure to justify interventions such as nutrition support will intensify. The establishment of clinical practice guidelines is one means of providing practitioners with such justification, but clinical practice guidelines for nutrition support cannot be based primarily on prospective randomized trials. This situation arises as the result of limitations specific to nutrition support whereby the most malnourished patients-those who appear most likely to show a benefit from the treatment-cannot be randomized to a no feeding group and are therefore excluded from participation in the study. As the result of this limitation, marginal candidates for nutrition support have been included in some trials, potentially masking the benefits of this treatment. An additional problem limiting present interpretation of published reports of randomized trials in nutrition support is the fact that ongoing research continues to yield improvements in the clinical practice of nutrition support. Thus the nutrition support group in such trials may not have received this treatment according to current practice. The A.S.P.E.N. Guidelines, based on both randomized prospective trials and other types of evidence, represent an important contribution to the practice of nutrition support. Testing of the performance of these and other guidelines in clinical practice and further outcomes research will be important steps toward revision and improvement of nutrition support, but may be difficult to achieve in the near future.

The Surgical Infection Society Guidelines on Antimicrobial Therapy for Intra-Abdominal Infections: An Executive Summary

“…Level 1 guidelines are those supported by high-quality research-based evidence, generally prospective randomized controlled trials. Level 2 guidelines are those supported by less rigorously designed trials and retrospective controlled studies, and Level 3 guidelines are those supported primarily by uncontrolled trials and expert opinion (Table 2) [2,3].…”

Outcomes Research in Specialized Nutrition Support

“…14 -16 Many studies of the effectiveness of SNS (most notably the Veterans Administration Cooperative Trial 10 ), however, have been confounded by the inclusion of well-nourished subjects not at nutrition risk, a subset of patients who are unlikely to benefit from SNS. 17 Furthermore, most studies have focused on short-term clinical outcomes (primarily morbidity and mortality). More significant benefits may also be seen if longer-term outcomes (eg, 30-day readmission rate, functional status, sense of well-being) are assessed.…”

Intravenous Hyperalimentation and Cancer: A Historical Perspective

“…Nearly 10 years after Copeland's address, a coincidental observation regarding the potential effect of excluding randomization of severely malnourished patients on the results of the Veterans Affairs perioperative TPN study was used to support a similar argument in patients receiving perioperative TPN. 5 Copeland mentioned a series of factors affecting nutritional repletion in cancer patients that included the degree of initial malnutrition, initial and continuing catabolic response from the disease and its treatment, energy expenditure during the oncologic therapy, time, content, and method of nutritional repletion and expertise in the technique of nutrition rehabilitation.…”