Oral Nutritional Supplements (ONS)

to Tackle MalnutritionA summary of the evidence

base

Medical Nutrition International Industry (MNI)

Content

• What is malnutrition?• Identifying malnutrition• Prevalence of malnutrition• Causes and consequences of malnutrition• Economic consequences of malnutrition• Benefits of oral nutritional supplements (ONS)

• Nutritional• Functional• Clinical • Economic benefits

• Benefits of screening for malnutrition• Recommendations for action

The ‘hidden’ problem of malnutrition

“Malnutrition does not show up in the streets in Europe. Instead malnutrition is a hidden health problem residing at home or in care homes”1

1. Ljungqvist O & de Man F. Nutr Hosp 2009; 24(3):368-370.

Management of malnutritionOral Nutritional Supplements (ONS) are an important strategy in nutritional care but there is often poor awareness of the value of

nutritional care, especially ONS

What is malnutrition?

• No universally accepted definition of malnutrition, but following definition widely acknowledged (also by ESPEN)1-2:

• ‘Malnutrition’ includes both over-nutrition (overweight and obesity) as well as under-nutrition

• Here ‘malnutrition’ is used synonymously with under-nutrition and nutritional risk1. Elia M. Maidenhead, BAPEN. 2000 2. Lochs H et al. Clin Nutr 2006; 25(2):180-186.

“A state of nutrition in which a deficiency, excess or imbalance of energy, protein, and other nutrients causes measurable adverse effects on tissue/body

form (body shape, size, and composition) and function, and clinical outcome.”

Identifying malnutrition risk

• Nutritional screening identifies individuals who:• are ‘at-risk’ across the spectrum of nutritional status• are at risk of adverse outcome and who• may benefit clinically from nutritional support

*Unless detrimental or no benefit expected from nutritional support e.g. imminent death.

Patients will only benefit from nutritional screening

if it results in action* to improve their nutritional care

Tools to identify malnutrition risk

• Practical, validated tools available to screen for risk of malnutrition• Specifically designed for different patient groups and care settingsExamples include:

For hospital and community patients

For older people For adult hospital patients

For children

‘MUST’

NRS 2002

Strongkids

However, they are not routinely used, meaning that malnutrition is often missed

Malnutrition goes undetected and untreated

• Lack of routine screening for malnutrition and itsrisk factors has meant that the opportunity for early intervention, and prevention, is often missed

• Even when found, malnutrition is not always appropriately treated :Often less than 50% of patients identified as malnourished receive nutritional intervention1-4

1. Lamb CA et al. Br J Nutr 2009; 102(4):571-575 2. Meijers JM et al. Nutrition 2009; 25(5):512-519 3. van Nie-Visser NC et al. Clin Nutr 2009; 4 Supplement 2:45. 4. Meijers JM et al. Nutr 2009; 25(5): 512-519.

Diagnosed malnutritionNo nutritional intervention

Mandatory screening shown to lower malnutrition (NL)

Decreased prevalence of malnutrition in hospitals and home following introduction of mandatory screening 1

• Increasing awareness and actively working toward improvement could lower the rate of malnutrition1

• Screening allows early identification and management with an appropriate care plan

Malnutrition prevalence rates in hospitals, nursing homes and home care institutions (NL)

1. Meijers JM et al. J Nutr 2009; 139(7):1381-1386.

Screening for malnutrition risk - Conclusions• Reliable and validated tools for screening are

available

BUT screening is still not routinely used

Malnutrition continues to go unidentified

The opportunity for early intervention is often missed

Screening must result in action if patients are to benefit

Prevalence of malnutrition

Malnutrition is a major public health concern that frequently goes unrecognised and untreated

Population of Europe: > 800 million 1. Ljungqvist O, de Man F. Nutr Hosp 2009; 24:368-70.

An estimated 33 million people in

Europe are at risk of malnutrition1

Prevalence of malnutrition in older peopleMalnutrition is significantly more common in older people1-4;

an ageing population will only exacerbate the problem in years to come

About 1 in 3 older people in hospital at

risk1-7

More than 1 in 3 people in care homes

at risk1,6,8-10

Around 1 in 3 older people living

independently at risk6

1. Russell C & Elia M. Redditch, BAPEN. 2008. 2. Russell C & Elia M. Redditch, BAPEN. 2009. 3. Russell C & Elia M. Redditch, BAPEN. 2011. 4. Russell C & Elia M. Redditch, BAPEN. 2012.5. Imoberdorf R et al. Clin Nutr 2010; 29(1):38-41. 6. Kaiser MJ et al. J Am Geriatr Soc 2010; 58(9):1734-1738. 7. Vanderweek et al. J Adv Nurs 2011; 67(4):736-746. 8. Suominen MH et al. Eur J Clin Nutr 2009; 63(2):292-296.9. Lelovics Z et al. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2009; 49(1):190-196. 10. Parsons EL et al. Proc Nutr Soc 2010; 69:E197. 11. Elia M. & Russell C. Redditch: BAPEN, 2009.

An estimated 93% of malnourished people live in the community11

Malnutrition is prevalent in hospitals worldwide About 1 in 4 patients in hospital are at risk of

malnutrition1-7

1. Russell C & Elia M. Redditch, BAPEN. 2008. 2. Russell C & Elia M. Redditch, BAPEN. 2009. 3. Russell C & Elia M. Redditch, BAPEN. 2011. 4. Russell C & Elia M. Redditch, BAPEN. 2012.5. Meijers JM et al. Br J Nutr 2009; 101(3):417-423. 6. Imoberdorf R et al. Clin Nutr 2010; 29(1):38-41. 7. Schindler K et al. Clin Nutr 2010; 29(5):552-559.

Prevalence of malnutrition in hospital patients

Malnutrition affects people of all ages

Almost 1 in 5 children admitted to hospital at risk1

1. Joosten KF et al. Arch Dis Child 2010; 95(2):141-145.

Malnutrition is prevalent across a wide

variety of diseasesPrevalence of malnutrition risk in hospital by

diagnosis

Republic of Ireland n = 1102 (‘MUST’ medium + high risk), UK n = 7521 (‘MUST’ medium + high risk)1, The Netherlands n = 8028 (defined by BMI, undesired weight loss, nutritional intake)2. 1. Russell C & Elia M. Redditch, BAPEN. 2012. 2. Meijers JM et al. Br J Nutr 2009; 101(3):417-423.

Prevalence of malnutrition - Conclusions• Studies across the developed world show that

malnutrition is common in patients• in hospital• in care homes and• in people who live at home

• Malnutrition affects all age groups, including children

• Malnutrition is particularly common in older people

Causes of malnutrition

• Insufficient dietary intake• disability and disease are at the heart of the problem

• Effects of disease and its treatment• leading to low food intake e.g. poor appetite,

swallowing problems and side effects of drugs1

• Lack of clear responsibilities for health authorities and healthcare staff• inadequate training and equipment for screening

exacerbates the problem of malnutrition2-3

More than 50% of patients in hospital don’t eat the full meal they are given4, and 30% of nursing home residents eat less than half their lunch5, often failing

to meet their nutritional needs

1. Stratton RJ et al. Wallingford: CABI Publishing; 2003. 2. Elia M & Russell C. Redditch, BAPEN. 2009. 3. Elia M. Redditch, BAPEN. 2003. 4. Hiesmayr M et al. Clin Nutr 2009; 28(5):484-491. 5. Valentini L et al. Clin Nutr 2009; 28(2):109-116.

Factors causing poor food and nutrient intake1

Individuals• Physical e.g. chewing or swallowing problems, difficulty self-feeding• Physiological e.g. anorexia, feeling full rapidly, nausea, taste

changes, pain• Psychological e.g. confusion, low mood, anxiety

Insufficient energy and

nutrient intake*

Institutions• Lack of nutrition policy or

guidance• Poor organisation of nutrition

services• Limitations in catering provision• Lack of specialist posts

Health care workers• Lack of recognition of importance

of nutrition• Lack of knowledge and skills• Poor documentation of nutrition

information • Lack of screening, action and

monitoring

Disease Related Malnutrition

*Requirements for some nutrients may be increased due to malabsorption, altered metabolism and excess losses.

1. Adapted from Stratton RJ et al. Wallingford: CABI Publishing; 2003.

Causes of malnutrition - Conclusions

• The causes of malnutrition are multi-factorial

• Patient-related factors resulting from disease and disability contribute to low food intake

• Organisational and institutional factors are also involved

• A multi-stakeholder approach is needed to identify and implement effective solutions

Consequences of malnutrition for individuals

• Markedly increased morbidity and mortality rates1-2

• Malnourished patients experience more complications than well nourished patients; the risk of infection is more than three times greater in hospitalised malnourished patients2-3

• Associated with poorer quality of life1

• Malnutrition has a particularly high adverse impact in the older person4 impairing function, mobility and independence5

• Malnutrition has an adverse impact on growth and development in children 1,5

1. Stratton RJ et al. Wallingford: CABI Publishing; 2003. 2. Sorensen J et al. Clin Nutr 2008; 27(3):340-349. 3. Schneider SM et al. Br J Nutr 2004; 92(1):105-111. 4. Stratton RJ et al. Br J Nutr 2006; 95(2):325-330.5. Elia M & Russell C. Redditch, BAPEN. 2009.

Malnutrition is associated with increased morbidity

• Malnutrition is associated with increased morbidity in acute and chronic disease including:

• Development of pressure ulcers1

• Poor wound healing1

• Post-operative complications such as acute renal failure, pneumonia and respiratory failure1

• Increased risk of infection2

1. Norman K et al. Clin Nutr 2008; 27(1):5-15. 2. Schneider SM et al. Br J Nutr 2004; 92(1):105-111.

Economic consequences of malnutrition

Malnutrition increases use of healthcare resources

Hospital patients• Increase in length of hospital

stay1-5

• Increase in readmission rates4,6

• Delays in returning home7

Also in children malnutrition is associated with an increased

length of hospital stay12-14Leandro-Merhi VA et al. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2011; 35(2):241-248. 2. Pressoir Met al. Br J Cancer 2010; 102(6):966-971. 3. Pirlich M et al. Clin Nutr 2006; 25(4):563-572. 4. Lim SL et al.Clin Nutr 2011; 31(3):345-350. 5. Marco J et al. Clin Nutr 2011; 30(4):450-454. 6. Planas M etal. Clin Nutr 2004; 23(5):1016-1024. 7. Nitenberg GM et al. Clin Nutr 2011; 6(Suppl 1):149. 8. Feldblum I et al. Nutrition 2009; 25(4):415-420. 9. Guest JF et al. Clin Nutr 2011; 30(4):422-429. 10. Collins PF et al. Proc Nutr Soc 2010; 69:E148. 11. Cawood AL et al.Proc Nutr Soc 2010; 69:E149. 12. Secker DJ & Jeejeebhoy KN. Am J Clin Nutr 2007; 85(4):1083-1089. 13. Hulst JM et al. Clin Nutr 2010; 29(1):106-111. 14. Joosten KF et al. Arch Dis Child 2010; 95(2):141-145.

Community patients• Increased number of visits

to family doctors8,9

• Increases in hospital admissions and readmissions10,11

• Increases in length of hospital stay8,9,11

Economic consequences of malnutrition

Costs of malnutrition

1. Elia M & Russell C. Redditch, BAPEN. 2009 2. House of Commons Health Committee. 2004. 3. Cepton. Munich. 2007.4. Freyer K et al. Clin Nutr 2012.. 5. Rice N & Normand C. Pub Health Nur. 2011.

Country Costs of malnutrition

Note

UK1 €15 billion Public expenditure on malnutrition in 2007

Germany3 €9 billion Additional costs due to malnutrition across all care sectors in 2003

The Netherlands4 €1.9 billion Additional costs due to malnutrition in 2011

Republic of Ireland5 €1.4 billion Public expenditure on malnutrition in 2007

Malnutrition and associated diseases increase healthcare costs in the UK

• In 2003, the estimated UK annual healthcare cost of malnutrition and any associated disease was over €8.4 billion (£7.3 billion*)1

• These costs can be further broken down:• €4.5 billion (£3.8 billion*) due to the treatment of

malnourished patients in hospital • €3.1 billion (£2.6 billion*) due to the treatment of

malnourished patients in long-term care facilities• €0.58 billion (£0.49 billion*) from GP visits• €0.21 billion (£0.18 billion*) from outpatient visits and• €0.18 billion (£0.15 billion*) from nutrition support in the

community

1. Elia M & Russell C. Redditch, BAPEN. 2005. * Calculated based on an exchange rate of £ to € of 1.17993 Source: Interbank 29.02.12).

Malnutrition and associated diseases increase healthcare costs in the UK

• A further estimated incremental cost of over €6.3 billion (£5.3 billion*), is largely due to1†:• More frequent and expensive hospital stays• Greater need for long term care

The UK alone spends in excess of €15 billion annually on managing malnourished patients,

corresponding to more than 10% of the total spend on

health and social care1

1. Elia M & Russell C. Redditch, BAPEN. 2005.

* Calculated based on an exchange rate of £ to € of 1.17993 Source: Interbank 29.02.12). † The extra cost of treating all patients in the general population with medium and high risk of malnutrition and associated disease compared with treating the same number of patients with low risk of malnutrition and associated disease.

Estimated cost of malnutrition across the EU

Malnutrition in Europe costs healthcare systems

an estimated €170 billion per year1

1. Ljungqvist O, de Man F. Nutr Hosp 2009; 24:368-70.

Costs of malnutrition vs. obesity in the UK

Estimated UK public expenditure (health and social care):

Annual Cost in 2007Disease-related malnutrition € 15 billion (£13 billion)Obesity €3.8-4.3 billion (£3.3-3.7

billion)Overweight and obesity € 7.7-8.7 billion (£6.6-7.4

billion)

*Public expenditure includes social and health care costs. Calculated based on an exchange rate of £ to € of 1.17993 Source: Interbank 29.02.12)

1. Elia M & Russell C. Redditch, BAPEN. 2009. 2. House of Commons Health Committee. London, The Stationery Office. 2004.

The economic costs of malnutrition are double the economic costs of overweight

and obesity1-2

Consequences of malnutrition - Conclusions

• The adverse consequences of malnutrition are far-reaching

• Malnutrition is associated with:• Increased complications• Greater risk of infections• Poor quality of life• Increased mortality• Suboptimal growth and development in

childrenMalnutrition is associated with increased healthcare

resource use and higher costs

Management of malnutrition

• Early identification is key to effective management of malnutrition• Screening using validated tools should be routine

practice

• A range of strategies can be used to manage malnutrition, e.g. dietary advice, oral nutritional supplements, tube feeding or parenteral nutrition (intravenous nutrition)

*Based on the ESPEN definition.

1. Lochs H et al. Clin Nutr 2006; 25(2):180-186.

Benefits of Oral Nutritional Supplements (ONS)

• ONS are an effective and non-invasive solution to tackling malnutrition

• National and international reviews of the evidence, for example NICE, cite ONS as having significant clinical benefits for malnourished patients when compared to standard care1-5

1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). London. 2006. 2. Milne AC et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;(2):CD003288. 3. Milne AC et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;(2):CD003288.4. Milne AC et al. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144(1):37-48. 5. Avenell A & Handoll HH. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;(1):CD001880.

Benefits of Oral Nutritional Supplements (ONS)

• Proven nutritional benefits• ONS increase total energy intake without decreasing food intake

and lead to weight gain and prevention of weight loss in patients who are malnourished or ‘at-risk’ of malnutrition in hospital and in community settings1-4

• Proven functional benefits • ONS have proven functional benefits such as improvements in

activity, quality of life and independence measures, particularly in older malnourished patients in the community5-11

1. Stratton RJ et al. Wallingford: CABI Publishing; 2003. 2. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). 2006. London, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). 3. Milne AC et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;(2):CD003288. 4. Cawood A et al.Ageing Res Rev 2012; 11(2):278-296 5. McMurdo ME et al.J Am Geriatr Soc 2009; 57(12):2239-2245. 6. Norman K et al.Clin Nutr 2008; 27(1):48-56. 7. Rabadi MH et al.Neurology 2008; 71(23):1856-1861. 8. Gariballa S et al. J Am Geriatr Soc 2007; 55(12):2030-2034. 9. Persson M et al. Clin Nutr 2007; 26(2):216-224. 10. Parsons EL et al. Clin Nutr 2011; 6(Suppl 1):31. 11. Stange I et al. Clin Nutr 2011; 6(Suppl 1):128.

Benefits of Oral Nutritional Supplements (ONS)

• Proven clinical benefits • ONS have proven clinical benefits; ONS use is consistently

linked to lower mortality and complication rates for malnourished patients when compared to standard care1-4, 5, 6

1. Stratton RJ et al. Wallingford: CABI Publishing; 2003. 2. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). 2006. London, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). 3. Milne AC et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;(2):CD003288. 4. Cawood A et al.Ageing Res Rev 2012; 11(2):278-296. 5. Avenell A & Handoll HH. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;(4):CD001880. 6. Stratton RJ et al. Ageing Res Rev 2005; 4(3):422-450.

Lower complication rates in supplemented vs control patients in hospital1

Benefits of Oral Nutritional Supplements (ONS)

• Data on the benefits of dietary counselling and food fortification in the management of malnutrition are lacking;

ONS have been shown to be more effective1-5

• Greater nutrient intakes and fewer complications are seen in patients with hip fractures given ONS compared with food snacks4-6

• Compliance to ONS is good. Compliance to other methods of oral nutritional intervention need investigation7

1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). London. 2006. 2. Baldwin C & Weekes CE. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(9):CD002008. 3. Weekes CE et al. J Hum Nutr Diet 2009; 22:324-335. 4. Stratton RJ et al. Proc Nutr Soc 2006;10A. 5. Stratton RJ et al. Proc Nutr Soc 2006; 65:4A. 6. Stratton RJ et al. Clin Nutr 2007; 2 Supplement 2:9. 7. Hubbard GP et al. Clin Nutr 2012; 31(3):293-312.

ONS reduce mortality in hospital patients

• Significantly lower mortality rates found in supplemented hospitalised liver disease, orthopaedic, and surgical patients, and hospitalised older people1

• Represents a 24% reduction in mortalityLower mortality in supplemented versus control patients

p < 0.001; odds ratio 0.61 (95% CI, 0.48 to 0.78), meta-analysis of 11 trials, n = 1965; no significant heterogeneity between individual studies

1. Stratton RJ et al. Wallingford: CABI Publishing; 2003.

ONS reduce complications in hospital patients

• Significantly lower complication rates in supplemented surgical, orthopaedic, elderly and neurology hospital patients1

• Represents a 56% reduction in complication ratesLower complication rates in supplemented versus control

patients in hospital

p < 0.001; odds ratio 0.31 (95% CI, 0.17 to 0.56), meta-analysis of 7 trials, n = 384; no significant heterogeneity between studies

1. Stratton RJ et al. Wallingford: CABI Publishing; 2003.

ONS reduce length of hospital stay

• Reduced length of hospital stay found in patients who received ONS compared with control patients (meta-analysis of 9 trials) • Average reductions ranged from 2 days (in

surgical patients) to 33 days (in orthopaedic patients)1

1. Stratton RJ et al. Wallingford: CABI Publishing; 2003.

ONS reduce hospital readmissions

• High protein ONS have been shown to reduce hospital readmissions by 30%1

1. Cawood AL et al. Ageing Res Rev 2012; 11(2):278-296.

Significant reductions in readmissions with ONS

Financial Benefits of Oral Nutritional Supplements (ONS) in hospital

COUNTRY AUTHOR (year)

PATIENT GROUP COST-SAVING* PER

PATIENT

COST-SAVING*

PER ANNUM

HOSPITALDenmark Lassen et al.

(2006) 1Medical - €16.4 million

(USD 22 million)**

The Netherlands

Freijer & Nuijten (2010) 2

Abdominal surgery patients €252 €40.4 million

UK Elia et al. (2005) 3

Pooled results from analysis in surgical, elderly and stroke patients

€1002 (£849) (bed day costs)€352 (£298) (complication costs)

-

UK Elia & Stratton (2005) 4

Older patients at risk of developing pressure uclers (Stage IV)

€543 (£460) -

UK Stratton et al.

(2003) 5

Surgical, orthopaedic, elderly and cerebrovascular accident patients

€415-€9651 (£352-£8179)

-

1. Lassen KO et al. BMC Health Serv Res 2006; 6:7. 2. Freijer K, Nuijten MJ. Eur J Clin Nutr 2010; 64(10):1229-1234. 3. Elia M et al. Redditch, BAPEN. 2005.4. Elia M, Stratton RJ. Clin Nutr 2005; 24:640-641. 5. Stratton RJ et al. Wallingford: CABI Publishing; 2003

* Calculated based on an exchange rate of £ to € of 1.17993 (Source: Interbank 29/02/2012. ** Calculated based on an exchange rate of USD to € of 0.74448 (Source: Interbank 29/02/2012); based on medical inpatient days.

ONS can reduce medical care costs in community patients - France

• Evaluation of the economic impact of using ONS among malnourished older people in the community found that intervention with ONS supported clinical and economic advantages including1: • Reduction in healthcare utilisation• Fewer home nursing visits • Less GP and physiotherapist visits• Fewer hospital admissions• Shorter length of hospital stay with admission

• After considering the investment required for ONS, the average reduction in medical care costs was €195 per patient

1. Arnaud-Battandier F et al. Clin Nutr 2004; 23(5):1096-1103.

Financial Benefits of Oral Nutritional Supplements (ONS) in the community

COUNTRY AUTHOR (year)

PATIENT GROUP COST-SAVING* PER

PATIENT

COST-SAVING*

PER ANNUM

CommunityFrance Arnaud-

Battandier et al. (2004) 1

Malnourished older people (>70 years of age)

€195 -

Germany Nuijten (2010) 2

Eligible for ONS due to risk of DRM

€234-€257 €604-€662 million

The Netherlands

Freijer & Nuijten (2010) 3

Older people (>65 years of age) eligible for ONS due ro DRM

€173 -

The Netherlands

Nuijten & Freyer (2010) 4

Older people (>65 years of age) eligible for ONS due ro DRM

- €13.3 million

UK Cawood et al. (2010) 5

Older people (>65 years of age) at high risk of malnutrition

- €19 million (£16 million)

UK Elia et al. (2005) 6

Pre-surgery (elective)* €812 (£688) (hospital bed-day costs)€424 (£359) (excess bed-day costs)

-1. Arnaud-Battandier F et al. Clin Nutr 2004; 23(5):1096-1103. 2. Nuijten M, Mittendorf T. Aktuel Ernahrungsmed 2012; 37:126-133. 3. Freyer K, Nuijten M. Value in Health 2010; 13(3):A101 (PH106). 4. Freijer K et al. Front Pharmacol 2012; 3:78.5. Cawood AL et al. Proc Nutr Soc 2010; 69:E544. 6. Elia M et al. Redditch, BAPEN. 2005.

* Short-term ONS (about 2 weeks)

ONS are cost-effective (UK)

• Cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) of the use of ONS within the context of a screening program undertaken in older hospital patients: €8,024* (£6,800)based on NICE economic modelling 1

• This is well below the NICE threshold of €23,599-35,398/QALY (£20-30,000*/QALY) for treatments deemed to be good value for money

1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). London. 2006.

Cost/QALY(€/year)

010

000

2000

030

000

4000

0ONSThreshold

*Public expenditure includes social and health care costs. Calculated based on an exchange rate of £ to € of 1.17993 Source: Interbank 29.02.12)

Recommendations for action

Fundamental prerequisites for success• There must be multi-stakeholder involvement at all

levels• Awareness, training and education are central to

success• Audit and quality improvement activities should be

included in any initiative that strives to tackle malnutrition • Good practice should be routinely shared

Recommendations for action

Identifying Malnutrition

• National nutrition policy addressing under-nutrition as well as obesity/overweight

• Routine screening for vulnerable groups built into national nutrition policies

• Validated screening tools routinely used• Appropriate equipment (weighing scales, stadiometers) available• Agreement about who is responsible for performing screening• Evidence-based guidance (including nutritional care plans) used to take

action following screening and for monitoringPrevalence • Commitment made to systematically measure the prevalence of

malnutrition• A common approach taken to measuring and documenting malnutrition

and risk of malnutrition, enabling comparisons to be madeCauses • Evidence based approaches for nutritional care plans should be used

taking account of causesConsequences

• Awareness raised about the negative consequences of malnutrition for patients, healthcare providers and for society

• Evidence based screening programmes used to ensure malnutrition is identified early and appropriate action taken

Recommendations for action

Benefits of ONS

• A wealth of evidence is available that demonstrates the benefits of ONS. This should be translated into practice to ensure that patients who need nutritional intervention receive it in a timely and appropriate manner

Guidance • Guidance on managing malnourished patients or patients at risk of malnutrition should reflect current evidence and should provide clear and practical advice about how and when to use different forms of nutritional intervention, including ONS

Good Practice • Examples of good practice should be shared widely to facilitate the implementation of nutritional guidelines and ensure best use of resources.

Note

• This presentation is based on a report synthesising relevant information on the rationale for and value of ONS to provide stakeholders with an up-to-date and practical summary of the evidence base:http://www.medicalnutritionindustry.com/mni-publications/

• This document is an updated version of previous reports prepared in 2009 and 2010. A pragmatic approach was used to identify relevant publications and material for inclusion. This document draws on the key elements of a comprehensive systematic review of the evidence base for the management of disease related malnutrition published in 20031. It builds on it by adding recent data on the prevalence, causes and consequences of malnutrition as well as the nutritional, functional, clinical and economic benefits of ONS. It now includes new data from outside Europe, as well as data examining the paediatric area.

• This document includes a unique collation of relevant guidelines relating to ONS, as well as examples of implementation of guidelines and good practice. We recognize there are gaps - either real gaps or due to difficult accessibility of documentation. We hope this will be the starting point to encourage further documentation and sharing of information

• Therefore, this report represents work in progress as unpublished data may not be included, trials are ongoing and further guidelines and good practice may be in development

• The full report is available to download at www.medicalnutritionindustry.com