Concurrent and Predictive Validity of AND‐ASPEN Malnutrition Consensus Is Satisfactory in Hospitalized Patients: A Longitudinal Study

Background Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) is the reference method to identify hospital malnutrition. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (AND‐ASPEN) proposed a more objective consensus, but studies regarding its validity are still scarce. This study aimed to evaluate the concurrent and predictive validity of the AND‐ASPEN Consensus. Methods Prospective cohort conducted with hospitalized adult and elderly patients. At admission, general data were collected and patients were evaluated by SGA and AND‐ASPEN with and without handgrip strength (HGS) for nutrition diagnoses. Patients were followed up for collection of outcomes—length of hospital stay (LOS), in‐hospital death, readmission, and mortality within 6 months after being discharged. Concurrent and predictive validity were tested. Results Six hundred patients (55.7 ± 14.8 years, 51.3% males) were evaluated. The median of LOS was 10.0 (5.018.0) days and in‐hospital mortality was 2.7%. SGA identified 34.0% and AND‐ASPEN 34.6% of patients as malnourished. AND‐ASPEN had substantial agreement with SGA (κ = 0.690) and satisfactory accuracy (AUC = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.810.88). Malnutrition defined by AND‐ASPEN predicted about 1.4 times higher risk of prolonged LOS (95% CI, 1.2–1.6) and hospital readmission (95% CI, 1.2–1.8), besides 5.0 times higher risk of hospital death (95% CI, 1.3–18.8) and 6 months' death (95% CI, 2.6–9.9), in an adjusted analysis. The validity of AND‐ASPEN without HGS was also satisfactory. Conclusion AND‐ASPEN can be used for malnutrition diagnoses, even without HGS because it has satisfactory concurrent and predictive validity.