Winkler, Marion F

Abstract Background The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) introduced an approach for malnutrition diagnosis in 2019 that comprised screening followed by assessment of three phenotypic criteria (weight loss, low body mass index [BMI], and low muscle mass) and two etiologic criteria (reduced food intake/assimilation and inflammation/disease burden). This planned update reconsiders the GLIM framework based on published knowledge and experience over the past 5 years. Methods A working group ( n = 43 members) conducted a literature search spanning 2019–2024 using the keywords “Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition or GLIM.” Prior GLIM guidance activities for using the criteria on muscle mass and inflammation were reviewed. Successive rounds of revision and review were used to achieve consensus. Results More than 400 scientific reports were published in peer‐reviewed journals, forming the basis of 10 systematic reviews, some including meta‐analyses of GLIM validity that indicate strong construct and predictive validity. Limitations and future priorities are discussed. Working group findings suggest that assessment of low muscle mass should be guided by experience and available technological resources. Clinical judgment may suffice to evaluate the inflammation/disease burden etiologic criterion. No revisions of the weight loss, low BMI, or reduced food intake/assimilation criteria are suggested. After two rounds of review and revision, the working group secured 100% agreement with the conclusions reported in the 5‐year update. Conclusion Ongoing initiatives target priorities that include malnutrition risk screening procedures, GLIM adaptation to the intensive care setting, assessment in support of the reduced food intake/assimilation criterion, and determination of malnutrition in obesity.

Abstract The vision of the ASPEN Rhoads Research Foundation is to promote innovation and research discovery to improve nutrition care and health. The Foundation was launched in 1993, incorporated in 2002, and established as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization in 2007. On the occasion of American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN)'s 50th anniversary, this article examines the creation of the Foundation, the state of clinical nutrition research funding, the Foundation's philanthropic mission, and the return on investment of Foundation grant support. To date, 114 investigators have received 2.78 million dollars in funding. The article examines the success of ASPEN research programs and Foundation grant support in career development, leadership, and mentorship. It is important to document a historical account of the ASPEN Rhoads Research Foundation and encourage innovation and discovery and ongoing financial support.

Abstract 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.

Abstract The purpose of this scoping review by the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‐19) Nutrition Task Force was to examine nutrition research applicable to the COVID‐19 pandemic. The rapid pace of emerging scientific information has prompted this activity to discover research/knowledge gaps. This methodology adhered with recommendations from the Joanna Briggs Institute. There were 2301 citations imported. Of these, there were 439 articles fully abstracted, with 23 main topic areas identified across 24 article types and sourced across 61 countries and 51 specialties in 8 settings and among 14 populations. Epidemiological/mechanistic relationships between nutrition and COVID‐19 were reviewed and results mapped to the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, and Time (PICO‐T) questions. The aggregated data were analyzed by clinical stage: pre–COVID‐19, acute COVID‐19, and chronic/post–COVID‐19. Research gaps were discovered for all PICO‐T questions. Nutrition topics meriting urgent research included food insecurity/societal infrastructure and transcultural factors (pre–COVID‐19); cardiometabolic‐based chronic disease, pediatrics, nutrition support, and hospital infrastructure (acute COVID‐19); registered dietitian nutritionist counseling (chronic/post–COVID‐19); and malnutrition and management (all stages). The paucity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was particularly glaring. Knowledge gaps were discovered for PICO‐T questions on pediatrics, micronutrients, bariatric surgery, and transcultural factors (pre–COVID‐19); enteral nutrition, protein‐energy requirements, and glycemic control with nutrition (acute COVID‐19); and home enteral and parenteral nutrition support (chronic/post–COVID‐19). In conclusion, multiple critical areas for urgent nutrition research were identified, particularly using RCT design, to improve nutrition care for patients before, during, and after COVID‐19.