TUESDAY, April 14, 2026 (HealthDay News) -- Ninety-day food supplementation is feasible and well accepted for individuals recently hospitalized with heart failure but did not lead to improvements in clinical outcomes, according to a study published online April 8 in JAMA Cardiology.
Ambarish Pandey, M.D., from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and colleagues examined the association of food supplementation versus usual care with clinical outcomes in patients recently hospitalized with heart failure. A total of 150 patients who were hospitalized for heart failure and enrolled within 14 days of discharge were randomly assigned to medically tailored meals, fresh produce, or usual care in a 1:1:1 ratio; those receiving food supplementation underwent secondary 1:1 randomization to conditional (linked to clinic attendance and medication fills) versus unconditional delivery. Patients were followed for 90 days.
Food delivery completion was 93.6 percent, with a mean reported consumption adherence of 4.7 and 5.5 days per week for medically tailored meals and fresh produce, respectively, with high retention (96 percent). Superior acceptability was demonstrated by fresh produce versus medically tailored meals (Net Promoter Score, 8.6 versus 7.3). No significant difference was seen in the primary clinical outcome (heart failure readmission or emergency department visit) between food supplementation and usual care. Food supplementation was favored over usual care for the hierarchical composite (win ratio, 1.21). Among participants receiving food supplementation, no association was seen for conditional versus unconditional delivery with the risk for heart failure events.
"What stood out was that patients who received food support reported feeling better, with improvements in their health-related quality of life. That's a critical outcome for people living with heart failure," Pandey said in a statement.
Several authors disclosed ties to the biopharmaceutical industry.