5 - All research
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/2164/705
Browse
Search Results
Item A cost-utility analysis of multivitamin and multimineral supplements in men and women aged 65 years and over(Elsevier, 2007) Kilonzo, Mary Mueni; Vale, Luke David; Cook, Jonathan Alistair; Milne, Anne Catherine; Stephen, Audrey Isabella; Avenell, Alison; MAVIS Trial Group; University of Aberdeen, School of Medicine & Dentistry, Division of Applied Health SciencesBackground and Aims As people age there is a progressive dysregulation of the immune system that may lead to an increased risk of infections, which may precipitate hospital admission in people with chronic heart or respiratory diseases. Mineral and vitamin supplementation in older people could therefore influence infections in older people. However, the evidence from the available randomised controlled trials is mixed. The aim of the study was to assess the relative efficiency of multivitamin and multimineral supplementation compared with no supplementation. Methods Cost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. Participants aged 65 years or over from six general practices in Grampian, Scotland were studied. They were randomised to one tablet daily of either a multivitamin and multimineral supplement or matching placebo. Exclusion criteria were: use of mineral, vitamin or fish oil supplements in the previous three months (one month for water soluble vitamins), vitamin B12 injection in the last three months. Results Nine hundred and ten participants were recruited (454 placebo and 456 supplementation). Use of health service resources and costs were similar between the two groups. The supplementation arm was more costly although this was not statistically significant (£15 per person, 95% CI -3.75 to 34.95). After adjusting for minimisation and baseline EQ-5D scores supplementation was associated with fewer QALYs per person (–0.018, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.002). It was highly unlikely that supplementation would be considered cost-effective. Conclusions The evidence from this study suggests that it is highly unlikely that supplementation could be considered cost-effective.Item Does enternal nutrition affect clinical outcome? A systematic review of the randomized trials(Blackwell Publishing, 2007) Koretz, Ronald L.; Avenell, Alison; Lipman, Timothy O.; Braunschweig, Carol L.; Milne, Anne C.Background: Both parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) are widely advocated as adjunctive care in patients with various diseases. A systematic review of 82 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PN published in 2001 found little, if any, effect on mortality, morbidity, or duration of hospital stay; in some situations, PN increased infectious complication rates. Objective: To assess the effect of EN or volitional nutrition support (VNS) in individual disease states from available randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Design: We conducted a systematic review. RCTs comparing EN or VNS to untreated controls, or comparing EN to PN, were identified and separated according to the underlying disease state. Meta-analysis was performed when at least 3 RCTs provided data. The evidence from the RCTs was summarized into one of five grades. A or B indicated the presence of strong or weak (low quality RCTs) evidence supporting the use of the intervention. C indicated a lack of adequate evidence to make any decision about efficacy. D indicated that limited data could not support the intervention. E indicated either that strong data found no effect, or that either strong or weak data suggested that the intervention caused harm. Patients and settings: RCTs could include either hospitalized or non-hospitalized patients. The EN or VNS had to be provided as part of a treatment plan for an underlying disease process. Interventions: The RCT had to compare recipients of either EN or VNS to controls not receiving any type of artificial nutrition or had to compare recipients of EN with recipients of PN. Outcome measures: Mortality, morbidity (disease-specific), duration of hospitalization, cost, or interventional complications. Summary of grading: A – No indication was identified. B – EN or VNS in the perioperative patient or in patients with chronic liver disease; EN in critically ill patients or low birth weight infants (trophic feeding); VNS in malnourished geriatric patients. (The low quality trials found a significant difference in survival favoring the VNS recipients in the malnourished geriatric patient trials; two high quality trials found non-significant differences that favored VNS as well.) C – EN or VNS in liver transplantation, cystic fibrosis, renal failure, pediatric conditions other than low birth weight infants, well-nourished geriatric patients, non-stroke neurologic conditions, AIDS; EN in acute pancreatitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, non-malnourished geriatric patients; VNS in inflammatory bowel disease, arthritis, cardiac disease, pregnancy, allergic patients, preoperative bowel preparation D – EN or VNS in patients receiving non-surgical cancer treatment or in patients with hip fractures; EN in patients with inflammatory bowel disease; VNS in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease E – EN in the first week in dysphagic, or VNS at any time in non-dysphagic, stroke patients who are not malnourished; dysphagia persisting for weeks will presumably ultimately require EN. Conclusions: There is strong evidence for not using EN in the first week in dysphagic, and not using VNS at all in non-dysphagic, stroke patients who are not malnourished. There is reasonable evidence for using VNS in malnourished geriatric patients. The recommendations to consider EN/VNS in perioperative/liver/critically ill/low birth weight patients are limited by the low quality of the RCTs. No evidence could be identified to justify the use of EN/VNS in other disease states.