Table 2 Included Studies– Nutritional Interventions
From: Malnutrition screening and treatment in pediatric oncology: a scoping review
Publication | Design or sample* | Measures | Results |
|---|---|---|---|
Prasad, et.al (2021) [26] | Randomized, open-label phase 3 trial Ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) 260 patients (intervention group n = 130; control group n = 130) | Biometrics: weight, nutritional status, fat mass Complications: infection, mucositis | • Intervention increased weight gain (77.8% vs 64.2%) (p = 0.025) • Significant increase in fat mass (p = 0.005) • Increased number of patients with normal nutritional status (p = 0.02) • Decreased complications (infections: p < 0.0001; mucositis: p = 0.006) |
Liang, et.al (2018) [21] | Quasi-experimental study Oral formula supplement 127 patients (intervention group n = 67; control group n = 60) | Biometrics: weight, hemoglobin, total protein, albumin, prealbumin Complications: hypoalbuminaemia, gastrointestinal complications, and infections | • Increase in weight and hemoglobin with formula supplement (p < 0.05) • Formula supplement increased total protein, albumin, and prealbumin (p < 0.001) • Decreased complications in intervention group (p < 0.05) • Fewer blood and albumin infusions for intervention group (p < 0.05) |
Gurlek Gokcebay, et.al (2015) [22] | Monitoring children during cancer therapy Isocaloric versus hypercaloric supplements for children with malnutrition 45 total patients (malnourished n = 26; hypercaloric supplement n = 18; isocaloric supplement n = 8) | Biometrics: weight, BMI, WFH, MUAC, TSF, serum albumin, prealbumin, protein Malnutrition criteria (at least 1 of the following): BMI < 5%ile, WFH < 90%ile, TSFT or MUAC < 5%ile, or 5% weight loss | • No statistical difference between hypercaloric and isocaloric formula • Decrease in malnutrition diagnosis with supplement (p = 0.006) • At 6 months, formula increased WFH (p = 0.003), BMI (p = 0.003), TSF (P = 0.007), and MUAC (p < 0.001) • Also increased serum albumin levels (p < 0.001) and prealbumin (p = 0.005) at 3 and 6 months |
Cuvelier, et.al (2014) [23] | Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study Megestrol acetate (MA) 26 patients (intervention group n = 13; placebo group n = 13) | Biometrics: weight, WAZ, HAZ, BMI-Z, MUAC, TSF Secondary outcomes: body composition, toxicities | • MA associated with significant weight gain (p = 0.003), WAZ (p = 0.002), BMI-Z (p = 0.006), and MUAC (p = 0.01) • No significant difference in HAZ or TSF |
Sacks, et.al (2014) [24] | Pilot study Proactive enteral tube feeding 53 patients (intervention group n = 20; control group n = 33) | Biometrics: WFH, BMI, WAZ Secondary outcomes: infection | • Intervention group had less of a loss in WAZ than control group (19% decrease vs. 40% decrease, respectively) from diagnosis to tube feeding initiation (p = 0.037) • No p-values were reported for changes in WFH and BMI • No difference in infectious complications |
Couluris, et.al (2008) [25] | Open label phase 2 trial Cyproheptadine hydrochloride (CH) and megestrol acetate (MA) for CH failure CH intervention n = 66; MA intervention n = 6 | Biometrics: weight, growth rate, WFH, WAZ, prealbumin, leptin Treatment response (stable or increased weight) | • CH significantly increased weight (p = 0.001), WAZ (p = 0.001), serum leptin levels (p = 0.0004) • 76% treatment response with CH • 5 of 6 patients on MA responded to therapy • No significant difference in prealbumin |