The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) approach to malnutrition diagnosis is based on assessment of three phenotypic (weight loss, low body mass index, and reduced skeletal muscle mass) and two etiologic (reduced food intake/assimilation and disease burden/inflammation) criteria, with diagnosis confirmed by fulfillment of any combination of at least one phenotypic and at least one etiologic criterion. The original GLIM description provided limited guidance regarding assessment of inflammation and this has been a factor impeding further implementation of the GLIM criteria. We now seek to provide practical guidance for assessment of inflammation in support of the etiologic criterion for inflammation. A GLIM-constituted working group with 36 participants developed consensus-based guidance through a modified-Delphi review. A multi-round review and revision process served to develop seven guidance statements. The final round of review was highly favorable with 99 % overall "agree" or "strongly agree" responses. The presence of acute or chronic disease, infection or injury that is usually associated with inflammatory activity may be used to fulfill the GLIM disease burden/inflammation criterion, without the need for laboratory confirmation. However, we recommend that recognition of underlying medical conditions commonly associated with inflammation be supported by C-reactive protein (CRP) measurements when the contribution of inflammatory components is uncertain. Interpretation of CRP requires that consideration be given to the method, reference values, and units (mg/dL or mg/L) for the clinical laboratory that is being used. Confirmation of inflammation should be guided by clinical judgement based upon underlying diagnosis or condition, clinical signs, or CRP.

Background: The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) approach to malnutrition diagnosis is based on assessment of three phenotypic (weight loss, low body mass index, and reduced skeletal muscle mass) and two etiologic (reduced food intake/assimilation and disease burden/inflammation) criteria, with diagnosis confirmed by fulfillment of any combination of at least one phenotypic and at least one etiologic criterion. The original GLIM description provided limited guidance regarding assessment of inflammation, and this has been a factor impeding further implementation of the GLIM criteria. We now seek to provide practical guidance for assessment of inflammation.Methods: A GLIM‐constituted working group with 36 participants developed consensus‐based guidance through a modified Delphi review. A multiround review and revision process served to develop seven guidance statements.Results: The final round of review was highly favorable, with 99% overall “agree” or “strongly agree” responses. The presence of acute or chronic disease, infection, or injury that is usually associated with inflammatory activity may be used to fulfill the GLIM disease burden/inflammation criterion, without the need for laboratory confirmation. However, we recommend that recognition of underlying medical conditions commonly associated with inflammation be supported by C‐reactive protein (CRP) measurements when the contribution of inflammatory components is uncertain. Interpretation of CRP requires that consideration be given to the method, reference values, and units (milligrams per deciliter or milligram per liter) for the clinical laboratory that is being used.Conclusion: Confirmation of inflammation should be guided by clinical judgment based on underlying diagnosis or condition, clinical signs, or CRP.

The study aimed to evaluate the hypothesis that chewing is a mechanical and physiological contributor to swallowing, physiologic/pathologic processes of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT), and nutrition-related factors. A search strategy was applied to three different databases to investigate if chewing function in adults affects the swallowing, physiologic/pathologic processes of the GIT, and nutrition-related factors compared to controls with no exposure. The included studies were evaluated for methodological quality and risk of bias and certainty of evidence. The results showed 71 eligible studies. Overall, the results showed that 46 studies supported the hypothesis while 25 refuted it. However, the GRADE analysis showed low to very low certainty of the evidence to support the hypothesis that chewing is an important contributor in the swallowing process, and physiologic/pathologic processes in the GIT. The GRADE analysis also showed a moderate to very low certainty of the evidence to suggest that chewing function contributes to nutrition-related parameters. The overall results of the current study showed that a majority (64.7%) of the studies (46 out of 71) supported the hypothesis. However, robust studies with proper design, adequate sample size, and well-defined outcome parameters are needed to establish conclusive evidence.

Food frequency questionnaires (FFQ) are commonly used dietary assessment tools. The aim was to assess the relative validity of a 15-item FFQ, designed for the screening of poor dietary patterns with a validated diet history (DH). The study population was derived from the Gothenburg H70 Birth Cohort Studies. The DH registrations were harmonized in accordance with the FFQ frequencies. The agreement was assessed by Cohen’s kappa with corresponding confidence intervals (CI) for the frequency and categorical variables. Bland–Altman plots were used for the numeric variables. The study comprised data from 848 individuals (55.2% women). Overall, there was high agreement between the methods, with the exact and adjacent level of agreement over 80% for eight variables. The proportion attributed to the opposite frequency was fairly low for most of the frequency variables. Most of the kappa values were in fair or moderate agreement. The highest kappa values were calculated for the type of cooking fat (k = 0.68, CI = 0.63–0.72) and sandwich spread (k = 0.55, CI = 0.49–0.53), and the lowest for type of bread (0.13, CI = 0.07–0.20) and sweets (0.22 CI = 0.18–0.27). In conclusion, the FFQ showed overall good agreement compared with the DH. We, therefore, think it, with some improvements, could serve as a simple screening tool for poor dietary patterns.

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (COVID-19) has hit older adults harder due to a combination of age-related immunological and metabolic alterations. The aim of this review was to analyze the COVID-19 literature with respect to nutritional status and nutrition management in older adults. No studies only on people aged 65+ years were found, and documentation on those 80+ was rare. Age was found to be strongly associated with worse outcomes, and with poor nutritional status. Prevalence of malnutrition was high among severely and critically ill patients. The studies found a need for nutrition screening and management, and for nutrition support as part of follow-up after a hospital stay. Most tested screening tools showed high sensitivity in identifying nutritional risk, but none were recognized as best for screening older adults with COVID-19. For diagnosing malnutrition, the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria are recommended but were not used in the studies found. Documentation of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction in relation to nutritional status is missing in older adults. Other COVID-19-associated factors with a possible impact on nutritional status are poor appetite and gastrointestinal symptoms. Vitamin D is the nutrient that has attracted the most interest. However, evidence for supplementation of COVID-19 patients is still limited and inconclusive.