Dataset Information

Feasibility and efficacy of enteral tube feeding on weight stability, lean body mass, and patient-reported outcomes in pancreatic cancer cachexia.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is characterized by progressive weight loss and nutritional deterioration. This wasting has been linked to poor survival outcomes, alterations in host defenses, decreased functional ability, and diminished health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in pancreatic cancer patients. There are currently no standardized approaches to the management of pancreatic cancer cachexia. This study explores the feasibility and efficacy of enteral tube feeding of a peptide-based formula to improve weight stability and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in advanced PDAC patients with cachexia.

Methods

This was a single-institution, single-arm prospective trial conducted between April 2015 and March 2019. Eligible patients were adults (>18 years) diagnosed with advanced or locally advanced PDAC and cachexia, defined as greater than 5% unexplained weight loss within 6 months from screening. The study intervention included three 28 day cycles of a semi-elemental peptide-based formula, administered through a jejunal or gastrojejunal feeding tube. The primary outcome was weight stability at 3 months (Cycle 3), defined as weight change less than 0.1 kg/baseline BMI unit from baseline. Secondary outcomes included changes in lean body mass, appendicular lean mass, bone mineral density, fat mass, and percent body fat, as measured with a DEXA scan, HRQOL (EORTC QLQC30) and NIH PROMIS PROs assessed at each cycle. Daily activity (steps, distance, active minutes, heart rate, and sleep) were remotely monitored using a wearable activity monitor (Fitbit) over the 3 month study period.

Results

Thirty-six patients were screened for eligibility, 31 patients consented onto study and underwent jejunal tube placement, and 16 patients completed treatment: mean age 67 years (SD 9.3), 43.8% male. Among evaluable patients (n = 16), weight stability was achieved in 10 patients (62.5%), thus completing the trial early. Increases in lean body mass (1273.1, SD: 4078, P = 0.01) and appendicular lean mass (0.45, SD: 0.6, P = 0.02) were observed. Statistically significant improvements at Cycle 3 from baseline were also observed for QLQC30 role function [mean difference (MD): 20.1, P = 0.03], appetite (MD: 27.4, P = 0.02), and global health scores (MD: 13.3, P = 0.05) as well as for NIH PROMIS t-scores for depression (MD: -10.4, P = 0.006) and pain interference (MD: -7.5, P = 0.05). Objectively monitored (Fitbit) activity levels increased, although statistical significance was not reached.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that enteral nutrition support may improve weight stability, lean body mass, appendicular lean mass and PROs in PDAC patients with cachexia who completed treatment, representing a subsample of the study population. The feasibility and role of enteral feeding in routine care remain unclear, and larger and randomized controlled trials are warranted.

SUBMITTER: Gresham G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8718084 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/objectivesTo ascertain the effect on body weight of 14 days of bolus enteral feeding with mixed meal (MM) and electrolyte solution (ES) in ambulatory adults with type 2 diabetes and obesity, and also the safety and feasibility of using a modified, intraorally anchored enteral feeding tube for this purpose.Subjects/methodsWe conducted a randomized, crossover pilot trial with 16 participants. A 140 cm, 8-French feeding tube was placed in the jejunum under electromagnetic guidance and anchored intraorally. Participants were randomized to self-administer 120 mL 523 kJ (125 kcal) MM, or 50 kJ (12 kcal) ES four times/day for 14 days. After ≥14 days without the tube, participants crossed over to the other treatment. The primary outcome compared weight change between treatments. Thereafter, participants could elect to undergo additional MM cycles. Participants were encouraged to continue with all usual activities including eating ad lib throughout the study.ResultsTen participants withdrew prior to completing two randomized 14-day cycles (4 social, 3 intolerant of anchor, and 3 intolerant of tube). Six participants were assessed for the primary outcome and showed no significant difference in weight loss between MM and ES (p = 0.082). For the secondary outcome of within-group weight loss, average weight loss from baseline was significant for MM but not for ES: -2.40 kg (95% CI: -3.78, -1.02; p = 0.008) vs. -0.64 kg (95% CI: -2.01, 0.74; p = 0.27). A total of 23 2-week cycles were completed (12 paired, 2 unpaired, and 9 additional), with no significant adverse events for 334 days of tube use.ConclusionsRepeated bolus nutrient administration via enteral feeding tube is associated with weight loss in adults with obesity and type 2 diabetes, with no significant difference seen between MM and ES feeds. The prototype device was safe, but requires development for further investigation into the effect of bolus jejunal feeding on weight and to improve acceptability.

Project description:BackgroundAdolescents with severe restrictive eating disorders often require enteral feeding to provide lifesaving treatment. Nasogastric feeding (NG) is a method of enteral nutrition often used in inpatient settings to treat medical instability, to supplement poor oral intake or to increase nutritional intake. This systematic review sets out to describe current practice of NG in young people with eating disorders.MethodsA systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted by searching AMED, EMBASE and MEDLINE databases from 2000 to 2020. Inclusion terms were: enteral feeding by nasogastric tube, under 18 years, eating disorders, and primary research. Exclusion terms: psychiatric disorders other than eating disorders; non-primary research; no outcomes specific to NG feeding and participants over 18 years. Titles and abstracts were screened by all authors before reviewing full length articles. Quality assessment, including risk of bias, was conducted by all authors.ResultsTwenty-nine studies met the full criteria. 86% of studies were deemed high or medium risk of bias due to the type of study: 34.4% retrospective cohort and 10.3% RCT; 17.2% were qualitative. Studies identified 1) a wide range of refeeding regimes depending on country, settings, and the reason for initiation; 2) standard practice is to introduce Nasogastric feeds (NG) if medically unstable or oral intake alone is inadequate; 3) NG may enable greater initial weight gain due to increased caloric intake; 4) there are 3 main types of feeding regime: continuous, nocturnal and bolus; 5) complications included nasal irritation, epistaxis, electrolyte disturbance, distress and tube removal; 6) where NG is routinely implemented to increase total calorie intake, length of stay in hospital may be reduced; however where NG is implemented in correlation to severity of symptoms, it may be increased; 7) both medical and psychiatric wards most commonly report using NG in addition to oral intake.ConclusionsNG feeding is a safe and efficacious method of increasing total calorie intake by either supplementing oral intake or continuously. There are currently no direct comparisons between continuous, nocturnal or bolus regimes, which may be used to direct future treatment for YP with ED.

Project description:AimTo assess the feasibility, tolerance and effectiveness of enteral nutrition in critically ill patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in the prone position for severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS).MethodsProspective observational study conducted in a multidisciplinary critical care unit of a tertiary care hospital from January 2013 until July 2015. All patients with ARDS who received invasive mechanical ventilation in prone position during the study period were included. Patients' demographics, severity of illness (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score), baseline markers of nutritional status (subjective global assessment (SGA) and body mass index), details of nutrition delivery during prone and supine hours and outcomes (Length of stay and discharge status) were recorded.ResultsFifty-one patients met inclusion criteria out of whom four patients were excluded from analysis since they did not receive any enteral nutrition due to severe hemodynamic instability. The mean age of patients was 46.4 ± 12.9 years, with male:female ratio of 7:3. On admission, SGA revealed moderate malnutrition in 51% of patients and the mean APACHE II score was 26.8 ± 9.2. The average duration of prone ventilation per patient was 60.2 ± 30.7 h. All patients received continuous nasogastric/orogastric feeds. The mean calories (kcal/kg/day) and protein (g/kg/day) prescribed in the supine position were 24.5 ± 3.8 and 1.1 ± 0.2 while the mean calories and protein prescribed in prone position were 23.5 ± 3.6 and 1.1 ± 0.2, respectively. Percentage of prescribed calories received by patients in supine position was similar to that in prone position (83.2% vs. 79.6%; P = 0.12). Patients received a higher percentage of prescribed protein in supine compared to prone position (80.8% vs. 75%, P = 0.02). The proportion of patients who received at least 75% of the caloric and protein goals was 37 (78.7%) and 37 (78.7%) in supine and 32 (68.1%) and 21 (44.6%) in prone position.ConclusionIn critically ill patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in the prone position, enteral nutrition with nasogastric/orogastric feeding is feasible and well tolerated. Nutritional delivery of calories and proteins in prone position is comparable to that in supine position.

Project description:Intervention participants will receive enteral feeding post-operatively via a nasojejunal gastric decompression tube placed intra-operatively. This tube will allow for simultaneous enteral feeding into the jejunum and gastric drainage. It is standard practice for all patients to receive a nasogastric tube during surgery which is usually used for gastric drainage only. Feeds will commence via the nasojejunal feeding port within 24hours of surgery using a standard polymeric enteral feed which is already used frequently throughout the hospital. Enteral feeds will run at 20mL/hr (equivalent to one tablespoon every hour) over 24 hours until post-operative day 3, after which the feed rate will be reviewed for increase. Nasogastric decompression will be managed as per the surgeon/intensive care unit (ICU) policy. If the participant has tolerated the feeds, the rate will be increased to 40ml/hour on post-operative day 3, 60ml/hour on post-operative day 5 and goal rate on post-operative day 7. Compliance to the intervention will be assessed and monitored through the audit of medical notes and standard observation charts. Parameters for feeding tolerance will be assessed using gastrointestinal and biochemical indicators including abdominal distension, vomiting, bloating, abdominal pain, nausea, C-Reactive protein, white blood cells, lactate and vital signs in discussion with the surgical and ICU team. Participants will also commence parenteral nutrition (PN) (current standard practice) at the same time the enteral nutrition starts. The combination of PN and enteral nutrition will meet the participant’s nutritional requirements as determined by the dietitian. PN rates will be increased operatively as per standard practice and then decreased if the rate of enteral feeding is increa Primary outcome(s): Feasibility of nasojejunal feeding post CRS and HIPEC. Feasibility will be defined as the ability to deliver at least 60ml/hour of enteral feeds via the NJ tube by post-operative day 6. This will be assessed using the medical record and fluid balance charts. [Post-operative day 6.];Complications of the nasojejunal-gastric decompression tube. This outcome will be assessed using the medical records.[End of intervention] Study Design: Purpose: Prevention; Allocation: Non-randomised trial; Masking: Open (masking not used);Assignment: Other;Type of endpoint: Efficacy