Disease-related malnutrition (DRM) affects approximately a third of hospitalized patients and is associated with an increased risk of morbimortality. However, DRM is often underdiagnosed and undertreated. Our aim is to evaluate the prognostic value of morphofunctional tools and tests for nutritional assessment in clinical practice. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies relating to the morphofunctional assessment of nutritional status and mortality or complications. Evidence was evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) method. Twelve GRADE recommendations were made and divided into seven topics: food intake and nutrient assimilation, anthropometry, biochemical analysis, hand grip strength, phase angle, muscle imaging, and functional status and quality of life. From these recommendations, 37 statements were developed and scored in a two-survey Delphi method by 183 experts. A consensus was reached on accepting 26/37 statements. Surveys had high internal consistency and high inter-rater reliability. In conclusion, evidence-based recommendations were made on the prognostic value of morphofunctional assessment tools and tests to assess malnutrition, most of which were found to be feasible in routine clinical practice, according to expert opinions.

Background: Cancer-related malnutrition is still unrecognized and undertreated in clinical practice. The morphofunctional assessment of disease-related malnutrition (DRM) is a new approach that focuses on evaluating changes in body composition and function. The aim of this study is to evaluate the prognostic value of classic and emerging assessment of malnutrition at 12-months survival in cancer patients. Methods. We conducted a prospective study on cancer outpatients. Bioelectrical impedance with phase angle (PhA), nutritional ultrasound by rectus femoris cross-sectional area (RFCSA), hand grip strength, and “Timed Up and Go Test” (TUG) were evaluated as predictors of mortality. Results. Fifty-seven patients were included. The non-survivors had lower PhA values than the survivors (4.7° vs. 5.4°; p < 0.001), and we had the same results with RFCSA 2.98 cm²/m² vs. 4.27 cm²/m² (p = 0.03). Cut-off points were identified using the ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curves for PhA (≤5.6° cancer patients, ≤5.9° men, ≤5.3° women), RFCSA (≤4.47 cm²/m² cancer patients, ≤4.47° men, ≤2.73° women) and rectus femoris-Y-axis (RF-Y-axis; ≤1.3 cm cancer patients, ≤1.06 men, ≤1 women). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, we found that high PhA was significantly associated with a lower mortality hazard ratio (HR: 0.42 95% CI: 0.21–0.84, p = 0.014). Likewise, high RFCSA was associated with a decrease in mortality risk in the crude model (HR: 0.61 95% CI: 0.39–0.96, p = 0.031). This trend was also maintained in the adjusted models by the confounding variables. Conclusions. Low PhA and RFCSA values are significant independent predictors of mortality in cancer patients. These cut-off points are clinical data that can be used for nutritional assessment and the prediction of clinical outcomes.

Phase angle (PhA) has been identified as a poor prognostic factor in patients with COVID-19. This study aimed to achieve a systematic review, where we discussed the potential role of PhA value as a prognostic marker of adverse clinical outcomes such as mortality and complication in hospitalized with SARS-CoV2 infection and established the strength of recommendations for use. A systematic literature review with meta-analysis was done in the main electronic databases from 2020 to January 2023. The selected articles had to investigate adverse consequences of the COVID-19 population and raw bioimpedance parameters such as PhA and published in peer-reviewed journals. GRADE tools regarded the quality of the methodology. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO. Only eight studies, 483 studies, were eligible for the analysis. In general, differences in PhA were seen between the comparative study groups. Patients with a low PhA experienced poor outcomes. A low PhA was associated with a significantly increased mortality risk [RR: 2.44; 95% CI (1.20–4.99), p = 0.01; I2 = 79% (p = 0.0008)] and higher complications risk [OR: 3.47, 95% CI (1.16 – 10.37), p = 0.03; I2 = 82% (p = 0.004)] in COVID-19 patients. Our analysis showed four evidence-based recommendations on the prognostic value of PhA with two strong recommendations, one of moderate and another of low-moderate quality, for predicting mortality and complications, respectively. We recommend using PhA as a prognostic marker for mortality and complications in this population. Although the results are promising, future studies must identify the PhA cut-off to guide therapeutic decisions more precisely.Registration code in PROSPERO: CRD42023391044