AND-ASPEN and ESPEN consensus, and GLIM criteria for malnutrition identification in AECOPD patients: a longitudinal study comparing concurrent and predictive validity

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES Malnutrition in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients is prevalent and usually assessed by body mass index (BMI), which can lead to misdiagnosis. The subjective global assessment (SGA) is the reference method for this diagnose in hospitalized patients. In the last decade, new tools have emerged Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics-American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition [AND-ASPEN], European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism [ESPEN], and Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition [GLIM]). Therefore, this study aimed to assess the concurrent and predictive validity of these tools in acute exacerbated COPD (AECOPD) patients. SUBJECTS/METHODS Prospective cohort study with hospitalized AECOPD patients. Malnutrition was diagnosed by SGA (reference method), AND-ASPEN, ESPEN, and GLIM consensus. Hospital length of stay (LOS) and mortality were the outcomes evaluated. RESULTS In 241 patients (46.5% males; 68.3 ± 10.2 years), malnutrition was found in 50.0% by SGA, 54.4% by AND-ASPEN, 20.2% by ESPEN, and 47.8% by GLIM. AND-ASPEN had the best accuracy (AUC = 0.837; 95% CI 0.783-0.841) and concordance (kappa = 0.674) with SGA and it was an independent predictor of prolonged LOS (OR = 1.73; 95% CI 1.01-3.37). ESPEN consensus did not agree with SGA, but was associated with prolonged LOS (OR = 2.57 95% CI, 1.27-5.20). The GLIM had good concordance (kappa = 0.533) and accuracy with SGA (AUC = 0.768; 95% CI 0.701-0.835), but was not associated with outcomes. CONCLUSIONS The AND-ASPEN was the most accurate tool for diagnosing malnutrition in AECOPD patients and was an independent predictor of prolonged LOS.