BackgroundButyrylcholinesterase (BChE) is an α-glycoprotein synthesized in the liver. Its serum level decreases in many clinical conditions such as acute and chronic liver damage, inflammation, injury and infections, and malnutrition.Methods and resultsThis review collects the main evidence on the emerging role of butyrylcholinesterase as a prognostic marker of liver and nonliver diseases as well as a marker of protein-energy malnutrition and obesity. In fact, serum concentrations and BChE activity seem to accurately reflect the availability of amino acidic substrates and/or derangement in protein synthesis due to hepatocellular damage. In cancer, with or without liver impairment, serum BChE levels serve as an accurate functional and prognostic indicator, useful for monitoring clinical and therapeutic interventions according to patients’ prognosis. In the absence of inflammation, BChE could also serve as an index of the effectiveness of nutritional support.ConclusionsSerum BChE assessment should be included in routine clinical diagnostic procedures to evaluate patient clinical conditions, in particular in cases of inflammation and/or protein-energy malnutrition.

BackgroundMalnutrition is a frequent complication in patients with cancer and can negatively affect the outcome of treatments. On the other hand, side effects of anticancer therapies can also lead to inadequate nutrient intake and subsequent malnutrition. The nutritional screening aims to identify patients at risk of malnutrition for prompt treatment and/or careful follow-up.Methods and resultsThis manuscript highlights the need of an interdisciplinary approach (oncologist, nutritionist, dietitian, psychologist, etc.) to empower patients who are experiencing loss of physiological and biological function, fatigue, malnutrition, psychological distress, etc., as a result of cancer disease or its treatment, and maintain an acceptable quality of life.ConclusionsIt is necessary to make all healthcare professionals aware of the opportunity to identify cancer patients at risk of malnutrition early in order to plan the best possible intervention and follow-up during cancer treatment and progression.

The measurement of body composition (BC) represents a valuable tool to assess nutritional status in health and disease. The most used methods to evaluate BC in the clinical practice are based on bicompartment models and measure, directly or indirectly, fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM). Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) (nowadays considered as the reference technique in clinical practice) are extensively used in epidemiological (mainly BIA) and clinical (mainly DXA) settings to evaluate BC. DXA is primarily used for the measurements of bone mineral content (BMC) and density to assess bone health and diagnose osteoporosis in defined anatomical regions (femur and spine). However, total body DXA scans are used to derive a three-compartment BC model, including BMC, FM, and FFM. Both these methods feature some limitations: the accuracy of BIA measurements is reduced when specific predictive equations and standardized measurement protocols are not utilized whereas the limitations of DXA are the safety of repeated measurements (no more than two body scans per year are currently advised), cost, and technical expertise. This review aims to provide useful insights mostly into the use of BC methods in prevention and clinical practice (ambulatory or bedridden patients). We believe that it will stimulate a discussion on the topic and reinvigorate the crucial role of BC evaluation in diagnostic and clinical investigation protocols.

No abstract

BackgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis summarized the most recent evidence on the efficacy of intermittent energy restriction (IER) versus continuous energy restriction on weight-loss, body composition, blood pressure and other cardiometabolic risk factors.MethodsRandomized controlled trials were systematically searched from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, TRIP databases, EMBASE and CINAHL until May 2018. Effect sizes were expressed as weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsEleven trials were included (duration range 8–24 weeks). All selected intermittent regimens provided ≤ 25% of daily energy needs on “fast” days but differed for type of regimen (5:2 or other regimens) and/or dietary instructions given on the “feed” days (ad libitum energy versus balanced energy consumption). The intermittent approach determined a comparable weight-loss (WMD: − 0.61 kg; 95% CI − 1.70 to 0.47; p = 0.87) or percent weight loss (WMD: − 0.38%, − 1.16 to 0.40; p = 0.34) when compared to the continuous approach. A slight reduction in fasting insulin concentrations was evident with IER regimens (WMD = − 0.89 µU/mL; − 1.56 to − 0.22; p = 0.009), but the clinical relevance of this result is uncertain. No between-arms differences in the other variables were found.ConclusionsBoth intermittent and continuous energy restriction achieved a comparable effect in promoting weight-loss and metabolic improvements. Long-term trials are needed to draw definitive conclusions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12967-018-1748-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

The outcome of cachectic incurable cancer patients on HPN is not homogeneous. It is possible to identify groups of patients with a ≥6-month survival (possibly longer than that allowed in starvation). The indications for HPN can be modulated on these clinical/biochemical indices.

No abstract