Accuracy of resting energy expenditure predictive equations in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) survivors

Q3 Nursing
Montserrat Montes-Ibarra , Camila L.P. Oliveira , Taiwo Olobatuyi , Maria Cristina Gonzalez , Richard Thompson , D. Ian Paterson , Carla M. Prado
{"title":"Accuracy of resting energy expenditure predictive equations in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) survivors","authors":"Montserrat Montes-Ibarra ,&nbsp;Camila L.P. Oliveira ,&nbsp;Taiwo Olobatuyi ,&nbsp;Maria Cristina Gonzalez ,&nbsp;Richard Thompson ,&nbsp;D. Ian Paterson ,&nbsp;Carla M. Prado","doi":"10.1016/j.nutos.2024.10.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background &amp; Aims</h3><div>Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be associated with abnormal energy metabolism and lead to inaccurate resting energy expenditure (REE) estimations by predictive equations. Here, we report measured REE (mREE) of a group of COVID-19 survivors and compared its accuracy against predicted REE (pREE).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This was a cross-sectional analysis of patients who survived COVID-19 prior to July 2021. An indirect calorimeter was used for mREE and compared against 21 pREE equations, 10 of which used a measure of body composition. Paired t-tests and Bland-Altman analysis were used to evaluate agreement and relative accuracy or bias for percentage error between pREE and mREE; measurements within ±10% were considered accurate.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We assessed 38 COVID-19 survivors; age: 48.5y (interquartile range: 40.2, 60.0), body mass index: 29.3±5.6 kg/m<sup>2</sup>, mREE: 1520± 275 kcal/d, time since COVID-19: 183.2 ±34.4 days. Ten (47.6%) pREE equations were significantly different from mREE (<em>P</em> &lt;0.05). Harris-Benedict equation had the smallest limits of agreement, ranging from -14.3% to 25.8% (or -249 to 393 kcal/d). Mifflin St-Jeor was the most accurate equation (within 10% of mREE). The best performing equation (Mifflin St-Jeor) still over or under-estimated pREE in ∼37% of the patients.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>A large variability in mREE versus pREE was observed in COVID-19 survivors. Even the most accurate equation (Mifflin St-Jeor) exhibited higher inaccuracies compared to mREE. We need to explore better methods to estimate energy requirements during the COVID-19 recovery period, until more accurate predictive equations are developed this population.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36134,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Nutrition Open Science","volume":"58 ","pages":"Pages 175-182"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Nutrition Open Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667268524001025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background & Aims

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be associated with abnormal energy metabolism and lead to inaccurate resting energy expenditure (REE) estimations by predictive equations. Here, we report measured REE (mREE) of a group of COVID-19 survivors and compared its accuracy against predicted REE (pREE).

Methods

This was a cross-sectional analysis of patients who survived COVID-19 prior to July 2021. An indirect calorimeter was used for mREE and compared against 21 pREE equations, 10 of which used a measure of body composition. Paired t-tests and Bland-Altman analysis were used to evaluate agreement and relative accuracy or bias for percentage error between pREE and mREE; measurements within ±10% were considered accurate.

Results

We assessed 38 COVID-19 survivors; age: 48.5y (interquartile range: 40.2, 60.0), body mass index: 29.3±5.6 kg/m2, mREE: 1520± 275 kcal/d, time since COVID-19: 183.2 ±34.4 days. Ten (47.6%) pREE equations were significantly different from mREE (P <0.05). Harris-Benedict equation had the smallest limits of agreement, ranging from -14.3% to 25.8% (or -249 to 393 kcal/d). Mifflin St-Jeor was the most accurate equation (within 10% of mREE). The best performing equation (Mifflin St-Jeor) still over or under-estimated pREE in ∼37% of the patients.

Conclusion

A large variability in mREE versus pREE was observed in COVID-19 survivors. Even the most accurate equation (Mifflin St-Jeor) exhibited higher inaccuracies compared to mREE. We need to explore better methods to estimate energy requirements during the COVID-19 recovery period, until more accurate predictive equations are developed this population.
2019年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)幸存者静息能量消耗预测方程的准确性
背景& 目的2019年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)可能与能量代谢异常有关,并导致预测方程对静息能量消耗(REE)的估计不准确。在此,我们报告了一组 COVID-19 幸存者的测量 REE(mREE),并将其准确性与预测 REE(pREE)进行了比较。使用间接热量计计算 mREE,并与 21 种 pREE 方程进行比较,其中 10 种使用了身体成分测量方法。使用配对 t 检验和 Bland-Altman 分析来评估 pREE 和 mREE 之间的一致性以及百分比误差的相对准确性或偏差;测量结果在 ±10% 以内视为准确:体重指数:29.3±5.6 kg/m2,mREE:1520±275 kcal/d,自 COVID-19 后的时间:183.2 ±34.4 天:183.2±34.4天。10个(47.6%)pREE方程与 mREE 有显著差异(P <0.05)。哈里斯-本尼迪克特方程的一致性范围最小,从-14.3%到25.8%(或-249到393千卡/天)不等。Mifflin St-Jeor 是最准确的方程(mREE 的 10%以内)。结论 在 COVID-19 存活者中观察到 mREE 与 pREE 之间存在很大差异。即使是最准确的方程(Mifflin St-Jeor)也显示出比 mREE 更高的不准确性。我们需要探索更好的方法来估算 COVID-19 恢复期的能量需求,直到开发出更准确的预测公式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Nutrition Open Science
Clinical Nutrition Open Science Nursing-Nutrition and Dietetics
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信