Rationale: The prevalence of malnutrition and the provided nutritional therapy were evaluated in all the patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) hospitalized in a 3rd level hospital in Italy. Methods: A one-day audit was carried out recording: age, measured or estimated body weight (BW) and height, body mass index (BMI, kg/m 2), 30-day weight loss (WL), comorbidities, serum albumin and Creactive protein (CRP: nv < 0.5 mg/dL), hospital diet (HD) intake, oral nutritional supplements (ONS), enteral (EN) and parenteral nutrition (PN). Modified NRS-2002 tool and GLIM criteria were used for nutritional risk screening and for the diagnosis of malnutrition, respectively. Results: A total of 268 patients was evaluated; intermediate care units (IMCUs, 61%), sub-intensive care units (SICUs, 8%), intensive care units (ICUs, 17%) and rehabilitation units (RUs, 14%): BMI: <18.5, 9% (higher in RUs, p ¼ 0.008) and !30, 13% (higher in ICUs, p ¼ 0.012); WL ! 5%, 52% (higher in ICUs and RUs, p ¼ 0.001); CRP >0.5: 78% (higher in ICUs and lower in RUs, p < 0.001); Nutritional risk and malnutrition were present in 77% (higher in ICUs and RUs, p < 0.001) and 50% (higher in ICUs, p ¼ 0.0792) of the patients, respectively. HD intake 50%, 39% (higher in IMCUs and ICUs, p < 0.001); ONS, EN and PN were prescribed to 6%, 13% and 5%, respectively. Median energy and protein intake/kg BW were 25 kcal and 1.1 g (both lower in ICUs, p < 0.05) respectively. Conclusions: Most of the patients were at nutritional risk, and one-half of them was malnourished. The frequency of nutritional risk, malnutrition, disease/inflammation burden and decrease intake of HD differed among the intensity of care settings, where the patients were managed according to the severity of the disease. The patient energy and protein intake were at the lowest limit or below the recommended amounts, indicating the need for actions to improve the nutritional care practice.

Both AIF and CIF are relatively rare conditions and most of the published work presents evidence from small, single-centre studies. Much remains to be investigated to improve the diagnosis and management of IF and future studies should rely on multidisciplinary, multicentre and multinational collaborations that gather data from large cohorts of patients. Emphasis should also be placed on partnership with patients, carers and government agencies in order to improve the quality of research that focuses on patient-centred outcomes that will help to improve both outcomes and quality of life in patients with this devastating condition.

No abstract

Background and aimNo marker to categorise the severity of chronic intestinal failure (CIF) has been developed. A 1-year international survey was carried out to investigate whether the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism clinical classification of CIF, based on the type and volume of the intravenous supplementation (IVS), could be an indicator of CIF severity.MethodsAt baseline, participating home parenteral nutrition (HPN) centres enrolled all adults with ongoing CIF due to non-malignant disease; demographic data, body mass index, CIF mechanism, underlying disease, HPN duration and IVS category were recorded for each patient. The type of IVS was classified as fluid and electrolyte alone (FE) or parenteral nutrition admixture (PN). The mean daily IVS volume, calculated on a weekly basis, was categorised as <1, 1–2, 2–3 and >3 L/day. The severity of CIF was determined by patient outcome (still on HPN, weaned from HPN, deceased) and the occurrence of major HPN/CIF-related complications: intestinal failure-associated liver disease (IFALD), catheter-related venous thrombosis and catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI).ResultsFifty-one HPN centres included 2194 patients. The analysis showed that both IVS type and volume were independently associated with the odds of weaning from HPN (significantly higher for PN <1 L/day than for FE and all PN >1 L/day), patients’ death (lower for FE, p=0.079), presence of IFALD cholestasis/liver failure and occurrence of CRBSI (significantly higher for PN 2–3 and PN >3 L/day).ConclusionsThe type and volume of IVS required by patients with CIF could be indicators to categorise the severity of CIF in both clinical practice and research protocols.