Find out more about the important role HMB plays in muscle maintenance.

THE BENEFITS OF ONS CONTAINING HMB ARE SUPPORTED BY A WEALTH OF CLINICAL EVIDENCE

Specialised ONS containing HMB have been proven to have a positive effect on patients with long-term health conditions.

THE POWER OF ABBOTT’S ONS WITH A UNIQUE BLEND CONTAINING HMB

Abbott’s unique blend of high protein, HMB and vitamin D is clinically proven to help reduce muscle loss and support strength and recovery from illness, injury and surgery.^12-14

More than 18 clinical studies have shown that Abbott’s ONS with a unique blend, including HMB, can improve patient outcomes in more ways than one:

• Preserves muscle mass^{*,†,‡,§,||,¶,~,17-23}
• Increases parameters of strength^{**,††,‡‡,§§,¶,¶¶,~,11,22-27}
• Improves physical function^{‡,#,§§,¶,11,20,22,28}
• Improves mobility post-surgery^§§,11
• Accelerates wound healing^§§,11
• Improves quality of life^{#,¶,~,22-23,28}
• Reduces risk of mortality^{**, ##,25,29}

DISCOVER MORE ABOUT HMB

Podcast: The importance of muscle mass and HMB during illness

In this 25-minute podcast episode, Dr Suzette Pereira discusses how muscle mass can impact the health status and outcomes of severely ill patients, and how ingredients like HMB can support recovery.

Infographic: The role of leucine and HMB infographic

This infographic highlights the role of leucine and its metabolite HMB in supporting muscle health in aging and illness.

UK-N/A-2300357 |  October 2023

Footnotes


COPD - Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. ***HMB (Beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate) is an active metabolite of leucine, among the constituent elements of proteins, naturally found in some foods, but in small quantities. °Studied in healthy young males, over a period of 2.5 hours after receiving HMB supplementation. >Compared to baseline at post-absorptive state. |In a RCT including 19 healthy adults aged ≥60 years confined to bed rest for 10 days. CaHMB (3 g daily) prevented the decline in total LBM over bed rest (-0.17 ± 0.19 kg; p =0.23) in treated group versus control group (-2.05±0.66 kg; p =0.02). \Postoperative nutrition provided 1900 kcal and 76 g protein a day. ♢Study design: A randomised control trial to investigating the effects of a specialised ONS on 75 older malnourished women (≥65 years) who underwent surgery for hip fracture vs standard post operative nutrition. Patients were mobile and ambulatory before the fracture. ◆Patients in the intervention group (n=32) + specialised ONS§. Patients in the control group (n=30) received standard post-operative nutrition (1900 kcal, 76 g protein per day) alone. *In older community living adults (>60 years) receiving outpatient care with or at risk of malnutrition. †In 283 adult patients with or at risk of malnutrition under standard of care, 63% being cancer patients. ‡In 62 community-dwelling pre-frail older people taking a specialised ONS vs nutritional counselling over 12 weeks. §In 61 patients undergoing radical cystectomy receiving either a specialised ONS or vitamin/mineral supplement twice daily for 8 weeks. ||In 92 patients aged 65 and over with hip fractures admitted to a rehabilitation facility, either receiving a standard diet plus 2 bottles of the study product or a standard diet only. Standard diet provided 1500 kcal, 87.4 g protein a day. ¶An open-label study of elderly (n=35) patients with recent weight loss (>5% during previous 3 months) showed that 12 weeks supplementation of experimental product twice daily increased dietery intake, biochemical variables, and quality of life compared to baseline. ~As shown in a randomised controlled trial in which normally nourished patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchectasis received pulmonary rehabilitation plus a specialised ONS or pulmonary rehabilitation only for 12 weeks. In the intervention group, mean and maximum handgrip dynamometry, physical functioning domain of QOL-B-V3.0 and other outcomes were significantly increased from baseline at 12 weeks and 24 weeks and fat free mass at 12 weeks. **As shown in a randomised control trial to investigate the effects of the intervention ONS on malnourished, cardiopulmonary patients (≥65 years) vs placebo. The intervention ONS decreased mortality at 90 days post-discharge, however the study did not observe a significant effect for the primary composite endpoint of non-elective readmission or death. This post-hoc, sub-group analysis from the NOURISH study cohort comprised 214 COPD patients. ††Strength was measured by handgrip strength in a post hoc analysis of over 600 malnourished people with heart or lung diseases, age 65 or older. Study product was consumed twice a day for 30 days, as compared to standard of care. ‡‡In 330 older adults with malnutrition and sarcopenia. Muscle quality was calculated as leg strength expressed relative to the muscle mass. §§As shown in a randomised control trial to investigate the effects of a specialised ONS on older women (≥65 years) who underwent surgery for hip fracture vs. standard post-operative nutrition. Post-operative nutrition provided 1900 kcal and 76 g protein a day. Muscle function was measured by handgrip strength. Mobilisation status was assessed on post-operative days 15 and 30. ¶¶In 65 healthy older female patients who regularly attended a fitness programme. #In a single arm open-label study of 148 patients aged 80±8.3 years with or at risk of malnutrition who consumed experimental product twice daily for 12 weeks as compared to baseline. ##As shown in a randomised control trial to investigate the effects of the intervention ONS on malnourished, cardiopulmonary patients (≥65 years) vs placebo. The intervention ONS decreased mortality at 90 days post-discharge, however the study did not observe a significant effect for the primary composite endpoint of non-elective readmission or death. ~~In 102 nursing home residents ≥75 years old randomised into an intervention group (the intervention consisted of a combinationof sit-to-stand test 4 times/day and 2 bottles of a high protein low volume ONS) or a control group for 12 weeks.

References


1. Carbone JW &Pasiakos SM. Nutrients 2019;11(5):1136. 2. Tipton KD et al. Sports Med 2018;48(1):53-64. 3. Argilés JM et al. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2016;17(9):789-96. 4. Wilkinson DJ et al. J Physiol 2013;591:2911-23. 5. Deutz NE et al. Clin Nutr 2014;33(6):929-936. 6. Nissen SL & Abumrad NN. J Nutr Biochem 1997;8:300-311. 7. Deutz NEP et al. Clin Nutr 2013;32:704-712. 8. Engelen MPKJ & Deutz NEP. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2018;21(3):207-213. 9. Prado CM et al. J Cachexia, Sarcopenia Muscle 2022;13:1623–1641. 10. Deutz NE et al. Clin Nutr 2020: doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2020.08.031. 11. Ekinci O et al. Nutr Clin Pract 2016;31(6):829-835. 12. Wolfe RR Am J Clin Nutr 2006;84:475-482. 13. Ceglia L Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2009;12(6):628-633. 14. Bear DE et al. Am J Clin Nutr 2019;109(4):1119-1132. 15. Wilson GJ et al. Nutr Metab 2008;5:1. 16. Wagatsuma A and Sakuma K. Biomed Res Int  2014;2014:121254. 17. Ritch CR et al. J Urol 2019;201(3):470 477. 18. Chavarro Carvajal DA et al. Clin Nutr ESPEN 2022;48:291-297. 19. Cornejo Pareja I et al. Nutrients 2021;13(12):4355. 20. Peng LN et al. J Nutr Health Aging 2021;25(6):767-773. 21. Malafarina V et al. Maturitas 2017;101:42-50. 22. De Luis DA et al. Nutr Hosp 2015;32(1):202 207. 23. Olveira G et al. Clin Nutr 2016;35(5):1015-1022. 24. Matheson EM et al. Clin Nutr 2021;40(3):844-849. 25. Deutz NE et al. Clin Nutr 2021;40(3):1388-1395. 26. Cramer JT et al. JAMDA 2016;17(11):1044-1055. 27. Berton L et al. PLoS One 2015;10(11):e0141757. 28. De Luis DA et al. Eur Geriatr Med 2018;9(6):809-817. 29. Deutz NE et al. Clin Nutr 2016;35(1):18- 26.