Eating and drinking difficulties are recognised sources of ill health in people with dementia. In the EDWINA (Eating and Drinking Well IN dementiA) systematic review we aimed to assess effectiveness of interventions to directly improve, maintain or facilitate oral food and drink intake, nutrition and hydration status, in people with cognitive impairment or dementia (across all settings, levels of care and support, types and degrees of dementia). Interventions included oral nutrition supplementation, food modification, dysphagia management, eating assistance and supporting the social element of eating and drinking. We comprehensively searched 13 databases for relevant intervention studies. The review was conducted with service user input in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration’s guidelines. We duplicated assessment of inclusion, data extraction, and validity assessment, tabulating data, carrying out random effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. Forty-three controlled interventions were included, disappointingly none were judged at low risk of bias. Oral nutritional supplementation studies suggested small positive short term but unclear long term effects on nutritional status. Food modification or dysphagia management studies were smaller and of low quality, providing little evidence of an improved nutritional status. Eating assistance studies provided inconsistent evidence, but studies with a strong social element around eating/drinking, although small and of low quality provided consistent suggestion of improvements in aspects of quality of life. There were few data to address stakeholders’ questions. We found no definitive evidence on effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of specific interventions but studies were small and short term. People with cognitive impairment and their carers have to tackle eating problems despite this lack of evidence, so promising interventions are listed. The need remains for high quality trials tailored for people with cognitive impairment assessing robust outcomes. The systematic review protocol was registered (CRD42014007611) and is published, with the full MEDLINE search strategy, on Prospero [1].

Objectives: To assess which osmolarity equation best predicts directly measured serum/plasma osmolality and whether its use could add value to routine blood test results through screening for dehydration in older people.Design: Diagnostic accuracy study.Participants: Older people (≥65 years) in 5 cohorts: Dietary Strategies for Healthy Ageing in Europe (NU-AGE, living in the community), Dehydration Recognition In our Elders (DRIE, living in residential care), Fortes (admitted to acute medical care), Sjöstrand (emergency room) or Pfortmueller cohorts (hospitalised with liver cirrhosis).Reference standard for hydration status: Directly measured serum/plasma osmolality: current dehydration (serum osmolality >300 mOsm/kg), impending/current dehydration (≥295 mOsm/kg).Index tests: 39 osmolarity equations calculated using serum indices from the same blood draw as directly measured osmolality.Results: Across 5 cohorts 595 older people were included, of whom 19% were dehydrated (directly measured osmolality >300 mOsm/kg). Of 39 osmolarity equations, 5 showed reasonable agreement with directly measured osmolality and 3 had good predictive accuracy in subgroups with diabetes and poor renal function. Two equations were characterised by narrower limits of agreement, low levels of differential bias and good diagnostic accuracy in receiver operating characteristic plots (areas under the curve >0.8). The best equation was osmolarity=1.86×(Na⁺+ K⁺)+1.15×glucose+urea+14 (all measured in mmol/L). It appeared useful in people aged ≥65 years with and without diabetes, poor renal function, dehydration, in men and women, with a range of ages, health, cognitive and functional status.Conclusions: Some commonly used osmolarity equations work poorly, and should not be used. Given costs and prevalence of dehydration in older people we suggest use of the best formula by pathology laboratories using a cutpoint of 295 mOsm/L (sensitivity 85%, specificity 59%), to report dehydration risk opportunistically when serum glucose, urea and electrolytes are measured for other reasons in older adults.Trial registration numbers: DRIE: Research Register for Social Care, 122273; NU-AGE: ClinicalTrials.govNCT01754012.

To assess the efficacy of interventions and environmental factors on increasing fluid intake or reducing dehydration risk in older people living in long-term care facilities. Systematic review of intervention and observational studies. Thirteen electronic databases were searched from inception until September 2013 in all languages. References of included papers and reviews were checked. Intervention and observational studies investigating modifiable factors to increase fluid intake and/or reduce dehydration risk in older people (≥65 years) living in long-term care facilities who could drink orally. Two reviewers independently screened, selected, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias from included studies; narrative synthesis was performed. A total of 4328 titles and abstracts were identified, 325 full-text articles were obtained and 23 were included in the review. Nineteen intervention and 4 observational studies from 7 countries investigated factors at the resident, institutional, or policy level. Overall, the studies were at high risk of bias due to selection and attrition bias and lack of valid outcome measures of fluid intake and dehydration assessment. Reported findings from 6 of the 9 intervention studies investigating the effect of multicomponent strategies on fluid intake or dehydration described a positive effect. Components included greater choice and availability of beverages, increased staff awareness, and increased staff assistance with drinking and toileting. Implementation of the US Resident Assessment Instrument reduced dehydration prevalence from 3% to 1%, P = .01. Two smaller studies reported positive effects: one on fluid intake in 9 men with Alzheimer disease using high-contrast red cups, the other involved supplementing 13 mildly dehydrated residents with oral hydration solution over 5 days to reduce dehydration. Modifications to the dining environment, advice to residents, presentation of beverages, and mode of delivery (straw vs beaker; prethickened drinks vs those thickened at the bedside) were inconclusive. Two large observational studies with good internal validity investigated effects of ownership; in Canada, for-profit ownership was associated with increased hospital admissions for dehydration; no difference was seen in dehydration prevalence between US for-profit and not-for-profit homes, although chain facilities were associated with lower odds of dehydration. This US study did not suggest any effect of staffing levels on dehydration prevalence. A wide range of interventions and exposures were identified, but the efficacy of many strategies remains unproven due to the high risk of bias present in many studies. Reducing dehydration prevalence in long-term care facilities is likely to require multiple strategies involving policymakers, management, and care staff, but these require further investigation using more robust study methodologies. The review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42012003100).

Risks and prevalence of malnutrition and dehydration are high in older people but even higher in older people with dementia. In the EDWINA (Eating and Drinking Well IN dementiA) systematic review we aimed to assess effectiveness of interventions aiming to improve, maintain or facilitate food/drink intake indirectly, through food service or dining environment modification, education, exercise or behavioural interventions in people with cognitive impairment or dementia (across all settings, levels of care and support, types and degrees of dementia). We comprehensively searched Medline and twelve further databases, plus bibliographies, for intervention studies with ≥3 cognitively impaired adult participants (any type/stage). The review was conducted with service user input in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration’s guidelines. We duplicated assessment of inclusion, data extraction, and validity assessment, tabulating data. Meta-analysis (statistical pooling) was not appropriate so data were tabulated and synthesised narratively. We included 56 interventions (reported in 51 studies). Studies were small and there were no clearly effective, or clearly ineffective, interventions. Promising interventions included: eating meals with care-givers, family style meals, soothing mealtime music, constantly accessible snacks and longer mealtimes, education and support for formal and informal care-givers, spaced retrieval and Montessori activities, facilitated breakfast clubs, multisensory exercise and multicomponent interventions. We found no definitive evidence on effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of specific interventions but studies were small and short term. A variety of promising indirect interventions need to be tested in large, high-quality RCTs, and may be approaches that people with dementia and their formal or informal care-givers would wish to try. The systematic review protocol was registered (CRD42014007611) and is published, with the full MEDLINE search strategy, on Prospero (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42014007611).

Background: Water-loss dehydration (hypertonic, hyperosmotic, or intracellular dehydration) is due to insufficient fluid intake and is distinct from h