Schneider, Stephane

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.

AbstractThe role of long‐term parenteral support in patients with underlying benign conditions who do not have intestinal failure (IF) is contentious, not least since there are clear benefits in utilising the oral or enteral route for nutritional support. Furthermore, the risks of long‐term home parenteral nutrition (HPN) are significant, with significant impacts on morbidity and mortality. There has, however, been a recent upsurge of the use of HPN in patients with conditions such as gastro‐intestinal neuromuscular disorders, opioid bowel dysfunction, disorders of gut–brain interaction and possibly eating disorders, who do not have IF. As a result, the European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN), the European Society of Neuro‐gastroenterology and Motility (ESNM) and the Rome Foundation for Disorders of Gut Brain Interaction felt that a position statement is required to clarify – and hopefully reduce the potential for harm associated with – the use of long‐term parenteral support in patients without IF. Consensus opinion is that HPN should not be prescribed for patients without IF, where the oral and/or enteral route can be utilised. On the rare occasions that PN commencement is required to treat life‐threatening malnutrition in conditions such as those listed above, it should only be prescribed for a time‐limited period to achieve nutritional safety, while the wider multi‐disciplinary team focus on more appropriate biopsychosocial holistic and rehabilitative approaches to manage the patient's primary underlying condition.