Josh McGovern, Richard J E Skipworth, Barry J A Laird, Donald C McMillan
{"title":"Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition cachexia: an inflammation-first approach for the diagnosis of disease-related malnutrition.","authors":"Josh McGovern, Richard J E Skipworth, Barry J A Laird, Donald C McMillan","doi":"10.1097/MCO.0000000000001052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>The following article examines the rationale for an inflammation-first approach for diagnosing cachexia and how the current Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) framework may be adapted to facilitate this.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Recently, the GLIM have published guidance on the measurement of inflammation in the context of cachexia, advocating that C-reactive protein (CRP) should be utilized for quantification. The inclusion of a systemic inflammatory biomarker for the diagnosis of cachexia questions whether it may be more aptly considered a systemic inflammatory syndrome.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>The current consensus of the GLIM is that cachexia is 'disease-related malnutrition with inflammation'. In line with this definition, the GLIM proposed a two-step diagnostic framework: screening for malnutrition using validated screening tools and then confirming the presence of disease-related malnutrition with phenotypic (nonvolitional weight loss, low BMI, and reduced muscle mass) and aetiologic criterion reduced food intake/assimilation, and inflammation or disease burden). The GLIM are to be commended for guidance on the measurement of systemic inflammation in their current proposal, given the relative importance to clinical outcomes in patients with cancer. However, the use of CRP is somewhat rudimentary and contrasts other cancer cachexia guidelines and contemporary clinical cancer research.</p>","PeriodicalId":10962,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCO.0000000000001052","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose of review: The following article examines the rationale for an inflammation-first approach for diagnosing cachexia and how the current Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) framework may be adapted to facilitate this.
Recent findings: Recently, the GLIM have published guidance on the measurement of inflammation in the context of cachexia, advocating that C-reactive protein (CRP) should be utilized for quantification. The inclusion of a systemic inflammatory biomarker for the diagnosis of cachexia questions whether it may be more aptly considered a systemic inflammatory syndrome.
Summary: The current consensus of the GLIM is that cachexia is 'disease-related malnutrition with inflammation'. In line with this definition, the GLIM proposed a two-step diagnostic framework: screening for malnutrition using validated screening tools and then confirming the presence of disease-related malnutrition with phenotypic (nonvolitional weight loss, low BMI, and reduced muscle mass) and aetiologic criterion reduced food intake/assimilation, and inflammation or disease burden). The GLIM are to be commended for guidance on the measurement of systemic inflammation in their current proposal, given the relative importance to clinical outcomes in patients with cancer. However, the use of CRP is somewhat rudimentary and contrasts other cancer cachexia guidelines and contemporary clinical cancer research.
期刊介绍:
A high impact review journal which boasts an international readership, Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care offers a broad-based perspective on the most recent and exciting developments within the field of clinical nutrition and metabolic care. Published bimonthly, each issue features insightful editorials and high quality invited reviews covering two or three key disciplines which include protein, amino acid metabolism and therapy, lipid metabolism and therapy, nutrition and the intensive care unit and carbohydrates. Each discipline introduces world renowned guest editors to ensure the journal is at the forefront of knowledge development and delivers balanced, expert assessments of advances from the previous year.