Search

Objective: Obesity is a challenge for bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) estimations of skeletal muscle and fat mass (FM), and none of the equations used for appendicular lean mass (ALM) have been developed for people with obesity. By using different equations and proposing a new equation, this study aimed to assess the estimation of FM and ALM using BIA compared with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as a reference method in a cohort of people with severe obesity., Methods: This cross-sectional study compared a multifrequency BIA (TANITA MC-780A) versus DXA for body composition assessment in adult patients with severe obesity (body mass index [BMI] of >35 kg/m 2 ). Comparisons between measured (DXA) and predicted (BIA) data for FM and ALM were performed using the original proprietary equations of the device and the equations proposed by Kyle, Sergi, and Yamada. Bland-Altman plots were drawn to evaluate the agreement between DXA and BIA, calculating bias and limits of agreement (LOA). Reliability was analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Stepwise multiple regression analysis was used to derive a new equation to predict ALM in patients with obesity and was validated in a subsample of our cohort., Results: In this study, 115 patients (72.4% women) with severe obesity (mean BMI of 46.1 [5.2] kg/m 2 ) were included (mean age 43.5 [8.6] y). FM DXA was 61.4 (10.1) kg, FM BIA was 57.9 (10.3) kg, and ICC was 0.925 (P < 0.001). Bias was -3.4 (4.4) kg (-5.2%), and LOA was -14.0, +7.3 kg. Using the proprietary equations, ALMDXA was 21.8 (4.7) kg and ALMBIA was 29.0 (6.8) kg with an ICC 0.868, bias +7.3 (4.0) kg (+34.1%) and LOA -0.5, +15.1. When applying other equations for ALM, the ICC for Sergi, et al. was 0.880, the ICC for Kyle, et al. was 0.891, and the best ICC estimation for Yamada, et al. was 0.914 (P < 0.001). Bias was +2.8 (2.8), +4.1 (2.9), and +2.7 (2.8) kg, respectively. The best-fitting regression equation to predict ALM DXA in our population derived from a development cohort (n = 77) was: ALM = 13.861 + (0.259 x H2/Z) - (0.085 x age) - (3.983 x sex [0 = men; 1 = women]). When applied to our validation cohort (n = 38), the ICC was 0.864, and the bias was the lowest compared with the rest of the equations +0.3 (+0.5) kg (+2.7%) LOA -5.4, +6.0 kg., Conclusion: BIA using multifrequency BIA in people with obesity is reliable enough for the estimation of FM, with good correlation and low bias to DXA. Regarding the estimation of ALM, BIA showed a good correlation with DXA, although it overestimated ALM, especially when proprietary equations were used. The use of equations developed using the same device improved the prediction, and our new equation showed a low bias for ALM., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of the study was to compare two nutritional screening tools in oncohematologic inpatients., Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed in a hematology ward from August to December 2015. Within the first 24 h of admission, the following nutritional screenings were performed: Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST), and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA). Patients who stayed in the hematologic ward were reevaluated with the three screening tools 1 and 2 wk after admission. The SGA was used as the gold standard in the detection of malnutrition., Results: Sixty-three patients were included in the study. Of these, 61.9% were men, ages 64 y (SD = 17.9 y) with 90.5% having a diagnosis of cancer. The prevalence of patients with nutritional risk at admission was 17.5% with SGA, 16.7% at week 1, and 31.6% at week 2. According to MST, the prevalence was 41.3% at admission, 13.9% at week 1, and 15.8% at week 2. According to MUST, the prevalence was 36.5%, 25%, and 36.8%, respectively. The results of diagnostic tests on admission were an area under the curve receiver operating characteristic of 0.691 for MST and 0.830 for MUST at admission; at week 1, 0.717 for MST and 0.850 for MUST; and at week 2 of assessment, 0.506 for MST and 0.840 for MUST., Conclusion: MUST might be a better screening tool than MST for detecting the risk for malnutrition in oncohematological inpatients., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Glutamine has been proposed as a preventive treatment for toxicity related to cancer therapies. The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of glutamine in the prevention of radiation enteritis., Methods: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial was performed including 69 patients who were assigned to receive either glutamine (Gln, 30 g/d) or placebo while they were receiving abdominal radiotherapy. Patients were re-evaluated 1 y after completion of treatment. The presence of chronic enteritis was assessed using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale. Nutritional status was evaluated using subjective global assessment, weight, and bioimpedance. Relative risk (RR) and its confidence interval (CI) were also calculated., Results: The trial initially included 69 patients (34 Gln, 35 placebo), but 11 patients were lost during follow-up (4 Gln, 7 placebo; P = 0.296). Chronic enteritis was developed by 14 % of patients: Gln 16.7 % versus placebo 11.1% (RR = 1.33; 95% CI, 0.35-5.03; P = 0.540). Most cases of enteritis were grade I (75%), with no differences between groups. The stool frequency increased after radiotherapy in patients who received Gln (from 1 ± 1 to 2 ± 2 stools per day, P = 0.012), but remained unchanged with placebo (1 ± 1 stools per day, P = 0.858; difference between groups P = 0.004). There were no differences between the two groups in terms of weight, fat mass, or fat-free mass index, or between patients with enteritis and those without intestinal toxicity., Conclusions: Chronic enteritis is a relatively infrequent phenomenon, and Gln administration during radiotherapy does not exert a protective effect., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)