Background: Although nutritional screening with a tool such as the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) is recommended for outpatients, staff

Cow’s milk protein allergy (CMPA) is associated with dysbiosis of the infant gut microbiome, with allergic and immune development implications. Studies show benefits of combining synbiotics with hypoallergenic formulae, although evidence has never been systematically examined. This review identified seven publications of four randomised controlled trials comparing an amino acid formula (AAF) with an AAF containing synbiotics (AAF-Syn) in infants with CMPA (mean age 8.6 months; 68% male, mean intervention 27.3 weeks, n = 410). AAF and AAF-Syn were equally effective in managing allergic symptoms and promoting normal growth. Compared to AAF, significantly fewer infants fed AAF-Syn had infections (OR 0.35 (95% CI 0.19–0.67), p = 0.001). Overall medication use, including antibacterials and antifectives, was lower among infants fed AAF-Syn. Significantly fewer infants had hospital admissions with AAF-Syn compared to AAF (8.8% vs. 20.2%, p = 0.036; 56% reduction), leading to potential cost savings per infant of £164.05–£338.77. AAF-Syn was associated with increased bifidobacteria (difference in means 31.75, 95% CI 26.04–37.45, p < 0.0001); reduced Eubacterium rectale and Clostridium coccoides (difference in means −19.06, 95% CI −23.15 to −14.97, p < 0.0001); and reduced microbial diversity (p < 0.05), similar to that described in healthy breastfed infants, and may be associated with the improved clinical outcomes described. This review provides evidence that suggests combining synbiotics with AAF produces clinical benefits with potential economic implications.

COVID-19 negatively impacts nutritional status and as such identification of nutritional risk and consideration of the need for nutrition support should be fundamental in this patient group. In recent months, clinical nutrition professional organisations across the world have published nutrition support recommendations for health care professionals. This review summarises key themes of those publications linked to nutrition support of adults with or recovering from COVID-19 outside of hospital. Using our search criteria, 15 publications were identified from electronic databases and websites of clinical nutrition professional organisations, worldwide up to 19th June 2020. The key themes across these publications included the importance in the community setting of: (i) screening for malnutrition, which can be achieved by remote consultation; (ii) care plans with appropriate nutrition support, which may include food based strategies, oral nutritional supplements and referral to a dietitian; (iii) continuity of nutritional care between settings including rapid communication at discharge of malnutrition risk and requirements for ongoing nutrition support. These themes, and indeed the importance of nutritional care, are fundamental and should be integrated into pathways for the rehabilitation of patients recovering from COVID-19.

Large trials assessing oral nutritional supplements (ONS) and dietary advice (DA) in primary care are lacking. This study examined effects of ONS + DA versus DA on intake, weight, QoL, healthcare use and satisfaction in malnourished free-living older people. Three hundred and eight people (71.5 ± 10.7y) were randomised to receive ONS + DA (n154) or DA (n154) for 12 weeks. At baseline, 4, 8, 12 weeks, intake, weight, QoL, healthcare use and satisfaction were measured. ONS + DA group (mean daily intake ONS 480 kcal; 21 g protein; 80% compliance) had significantly greater total energy and protein intakes (+401 kcal/d, p < 0.001; +15 g/d, p < 0.001) and weight gain (+0.8 kg; p < 0.001) compared to DA. QoL improved in both groups over time with a significant improvement in index with ONS + DA (p = 0.009). Significantly more participants found ONS + DA made a difference for them (p = 0.011), but no differences were found between groups using Euroqol. Compared to DA, healthcare use reduced with ONS + DA, (HCP visits by 34%, emergency admissions 50%, LOS 62%). Acceptability of both interventions was high (ONS 96%, DA 95%), with significantly more participants satisfied with ONS (89%) than DA (73%) (p = 0.009). This trial in primary care indicates that ONS are acceptable, make a difference to patients, significantly improve intake and weight, and reduce health care use with potential savings.

The impact of oral nutritional supplements (ONS) on patients with complications (disease related morbidity) requires further exploration. This systematic review included 44 randomised controlled trials (RCT) (29 RCT surgical, 15 RCT medical patients) examining the effect of ONS in community settings on the incidence of complications (n = 716, mean age 67 years, range 35-87). ONS (mean intake 588 kcal/day, range 125-1750; protein 22 g/day, range 0-54; mean energy from protein 22 %, range 0-54) were prescribed for a mean 74 days, range 5-365. Most RCT (77 %) reported fewer complications in the ONS group versus control. Meta-analysis (39 RCT) showed ONS consumption reduced complications including infections, pressure ulcers, wound and fracture healing (OR 0.68, 95 % CI 0.59,0.79; p<0.001). Results showed reductions when ONS were used in hospital and community settings (OR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.59,0.87; p = 0.001) or just in the community (OR 0.65, 95 % CI 0.52, 0.80; p<0.001). Reductions in complications were only seen with high ONS adherence ≥ 80 % (OR 0.63, 95 % CI 0.48,0.83; p = 0.001) and ready-to-drink ONS (OR 0.69, 95 % CI 0.60,0.81; p<0.001). This systematic review and meta-analysis show community-based use of ONS in addition to the diet substantially reduces the incidence of complications. The diversity of ONS, patient populations and complication outcomes within the trials included in this review mean further research is warranted.