M. Racey, M. Ali, D. Sherifali, D. Fitzpatrick-Lewis, Ruth A. Lewis, Milos Jovkovic, L. Gramlich, H. Keller, J. Holroyd-Leduc, A. Giguere, A. Tang, D. Bouchard, J. Prorok, P. Kim, A. Lorbergs, J. Muscedere
{"title":"营养干预和营养与身体活动相结合的干预对老年人虚弱或易患病的有效性:一项系统综述和荟萃分析","authors":"M. Racey, M. Ali, D. Sherifali, D. Fitzpatrick-Lewis, Ruth A. Lewis, Milos Jovkovic, L. Gramlich, H. Keller, J. Holroyd-Leduc, A. Giguere, A. Tang, D. Bouchard, J. Prorok, P. Kim, A. Lorbergs, J. Muscedere","doi":"10.9778/cmajo.20200248","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Although nutrition interventions may reverse frailty, it is unclear which interventions are optimal. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify effective nutrition interventions that improve outcomes related to frailty. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL (inception to July 2019) for English-language trials of nutrition and combined-approach (nutrition and exercise) interventions (with a control group) involving prefrail or frail adults aged 65 years or more. Outcomes of interest were frailty, mobility, health (body weight, body mass index), physical function (e.g., activities of daily living, muscle strength, appendicular lean mass), use of health care services (e.g., hospital admissions), quality of life, diet quality, mortality, and caregiver and social support. After data extraction, we assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials, rated the certainty of evidence with the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, and assessed statistical and methodologic heterogeneity. In addition, we conducted subgroup analyses of studies based on the primary intervention of protein supplementation. Results: We identified 15 studies involving 1825 prefrail or frail older participants: 7 were nutrition trials, 7 were combined-approach trials, and 1 trial had both a nutrition arm and a combined-approach arm. Seven studies had low risk of bias, 2 studies had high risk of bias, and for 6 studies the risk of bias was unclear. Nutrition interventions had small but significant effects on measures of physical function (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02 to 0.29), mobility (SMD 0.15, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.30) and frailty (SMD −0.22, 95% CI −0.44 to −0.01) outcomes. Nutrition interventions combined with physical activity also had small but significant effects on physical function (SMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.32), mobility (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.48) and frailty (SMD −0.41, 95% CI −0.68 to −0.14; risk ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00) measures. Protein supplementation (5 studies) had small but significant effects on physical function measures (SMD 0.16, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.31) and mobility measures (SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.39), with moderate certainty of evidence. Interpretation: There is moderate evidence that nutrition (including protein supplementation) and combined interventions are beneficial for prefrail or frail older adults. Trials with clear definitions of frailty and outcomes that reflect frailty identification and diagnosis are needed. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020144819","PeriodicalId":93946,"journal":{"name":"CMAJ open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of nutrition interventions and combined nutrition and physical activity interventions in older adults with frailty or prefrailty: a systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"M. Racey, M. Ali, D. Sherifali, D. Fitzpatrick-Lewis, Ruth A. Lewis, Milos Jovkovic, L. Gramlich, H. Keller, J. Holroyd-Leduc, A. Giguere, A. Tang, D. Bouchard, J. Prorok, P. Kim, A. Lorbergs, J. Muscedere\",\"doi\":\"10.9778/cmajo.20200248\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Although nutrition interventions may reverse frailty, it is unclear which interventions are optimal. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify effective nutrition interventions that improve outcomes related to frailty. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL (inception to July 2019) for English-language trials of nutrition and combined-approach (nutrition and exercise) interventions (with a control group) involving prefrail or frail adults aged 65 years or more. Outcomes of interest were frailty, mobility, health (body weight, body mass index), physical function (e.g., activities of daily living, muscle strength, appendicular lean mass), use of health care services (e.g., hospital admissions), quality of life, diet quality, mortality, and caregiver and social support. After data extraction, we assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials, rated the certainty of evidence with the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, and assessed statistical and methodologic heterogeneity. In addition, we conducted subgroup analyses of studies based on the primary intervention of protein supplementation. Results: We identified 15 studies involving 1825 prefrail or frail older participants: 7 were nutrition trials, 7 were combined-approach trials, and 1 trial had both a nutrition arm and a combined-approach arm. Seven studies had low risk of bias, 2 studies had high risk of bias, and for 6 studies the risk of bias was unclear. Nutrition interventions had small but significant effects on measures of physical function (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02 to 0.29), mobility (SMD 0.15, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.30) and frailty (SMD −0.22, 95% CI −0.44 to −0.01) outcomes. Nutrition interventions combined with physical activity also had small but significant effects on physical function (SMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.32), mobility (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.48) and frailty (SMD −0.41, 95% CI −0.68 to −0.14; risk ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00) measures. Protein supplementation (5 studies) had small but significant effects on physical function measures (SMD 0.16, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.31) and mobility measures (SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.39), with moderate certainty of evidence. Interpretation: There is moderate evidence that nutrition (including protein supplementation) and combined interventions are beneficial for prefrail or frail older adults. Trials with clear definitions of frailty and outcomes that reflect frailty identification and diagnosis are needed. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020144819\",\"PeriodicalId\":93946,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CMAJ open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CMAJ open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"0\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20200248\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CMAJ open","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20200248","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8
摘要
背景:虽然营养干预可以逆转虚弱,但目前尚不清楚哪种干预是最佳的。我们进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,以确定有效的营养干预措施,改善与虚弱相关的结果。方法:我们检索了MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane中央对照试验登记处和CINAHL(成立至2019年7月),检索了涉及65岁及以上体弱或体弱成年人的营养和联合方法(营养和运动)干预(对照组)的英语试验。感兴趣的结局是虚弱、活动能力、健康(体重、体重指数)、身体功能(如日常生活活动、肌肉力量、阑尾瘦质量)、医疗保健服务的使用(如住院)、生活质量、饮食质量、死亡率以及护理者和社会支持。数据提取后,我们使用Cochrane协作随机对照试验偏倚风险评估工具评估偏倚风险,使用推荐、评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)方法评估证据的确定性,并评估统计和方法学异质性。此外,我们对以补充蛋白质为主要干预措施的研究进行了亚组分析。结果:我们确定了15项研究,涉及1825名体弱或体弱的老年人参与者:7项是营养试验,7项是联合入路试验,1项试验既有营养组又有联合入路组。7项研究有低偏倚风险,2项研究有高偏倚风险,6项研究的偏倚风险尚不清楚。营养干预对身体功能(标准化平均差[SMD] 0.16, 95%可信区间[CI] 0.02至0.29)、活动能力(SMD为0.15,95% CI为0.00至0.30)和虚弱(SMD为- 0.22,95% CI为- 0.44至- 0.01)结果的测量有微小但显著的影响。营养干预与体育活动相结合对身体功能(SMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.06至0.32)、活动能力(SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.02至0.48)和虚弱(SMD - 0.41, 95% CI - 0.68至- 0.14;风险比0.72,95% CI 0.52 ~ 1.00)。蛋白质补充(5项研究)对身体功能测量(SMD 0.16, 95% CI 0.01至0.31)和运动能力测量(SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.02至0.39)有较小但显著的影响,证据确定性中等。解释:有适度证据表明,营养(包括蛋白质补充)和联合干预措施对体弱或体弱的老年人有益。需要对虚弱有明确定义的试验和反映虚弱识别和诊断结果的试验。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42020144819
Effectiveness of nutrition interventions and combined nutrition and physical activity interventions in older adults with frailty or prefrailty: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Background: Although nutrition interventions may reverse frailty, it is unclear which interventions are optimal. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify effective nutrition interventions that improve outcomes related to frailty. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL (inception to July 2019) for English-language trials of nutrition and combined-approach (nutrition and exercise) interventions (with a control group) involving prefrail or frail adults aged 65 years or more. Outcomes of interest were frailty, mobility, health (body weight, body mass index), physical function (e.g., activities of daily living, muscle strength, appendicular lean mass), use of health care services (e.g., hospital admissions), quality of life, diet quality, mortality, and caregiver and social support. After data extraction, we assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials, rated the certainty of evidence with the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, and assessed statistical and methodologic heterogeneity. In addition, we conducted subgroup analyses of studies based on the primary intervention of protein supplementation. Results: We identified 15 studies involving 1825 prefrail or frail older participants: 7 were nutrition trials, 7 were combined-approach trials, and 1 trial had both a nutrition arm and a combined-approach arm. Seven studies had low risk of bias, 2 studies had high risk of bias, and for 6 studies the risk of bias was unclear. Nutrition interventions had small but significant effects on measures of physical function (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02 to 0.29), mobility (SMD 0.15, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.30) and frailty (SMD −0.22, 95% CI −0.44 to −0.01) outcomes. Nutrition interventions combined with physical activity also had small but significant effects on physical function (SMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.32), mobility (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.48) and frailty (SMD −0.41, 95% CI −0.68 to −0.14; risk ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00) measures. Protein supplementation (5 studies) had small but significant effects on physical function measures (SMD 0.16, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.31) and mobility measures (SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.39), with moderate certainty of evidence. Interpretation: There is moderate evidence that nutrition (including protein supplementation) and combined interventions are beneficial for prefrail or frail older adults. Trials with clear definitions of frailty and outcomes that reflect frailty identification and diagnosis are needed. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020144819