BackgroundCachexia is a state of involuntary weight loss common to many chronic diseases. Experimental data, showing that cachexia is related to the enhancement of acute phase response reaction, led to the new definition of cachexia that included, aside from the principal criterion of weight loss, other “minor criteria”, Amongst them are levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), albumin and hemoglobin. However, there is paucity of data regarding possible differences of these laboratory parameters in patients with various diseases known to be related to cachexia.MethodsCRP, albumin and hemoglobin were evaluated in 119 patients, divided into two disease groups, hematological (ones with diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma or Hodgkin disease) and non-hematological (solid tumor patients and patients with chronic heart failure). Patients were further subdivided into two nutritional groups, cachectic and non-cachectic ones according to the principal criterion for cacxehia i.e. loss of body weight.ResultsWe found that cachectic patients had higher levels of CRP, and lower levels of both hemoglobin and albumin compared to non-cachectic patients, regardless of the disease group they fitted. On the other hand, the group of hematological patients had lower levels of CRP primarily due to the differences found in the non-cachectic group. Higher levels of albumin were also found in the hematological group regardless of the nutritional group they fitted. Limitations of cut-off values, proposed by definition, were found, mostly regarding their relatively low sensitivity and low negative predictive value.ConclusionsAs expected, differences in values of routine laboratory parameters used in definition of cachexia were found between cachectic and non-cachectic patients. Their values differed between hematological and non-hematological patients both in cachectic and non-cachectic group. Cut-off levels currently used in definition of cachexia have limitations and should be further evaluated.
IntroductionPostmenopausal women have higher risk of cardiovascular disease. One of the contributing factors could be reduced activity of anti-atherogenic enzyme paraoxonase 1 (PON1). The aim of this study was to examine differences in the lipid status, paraoxonase and arylesterase PON1 activities and PON1 phenotype in women with regular menstrual cycle and in postmenopausal women.Materials and methods:The study included 51 women in reproductive age (25 in follicular and 26 in luteal phase of the menstrual cycle) and 23 women in postmenopause. Lipid parameters in sera were determined using original reagents and according to manufacturer protocol. PON1 activity in serum was assessed by spectrophotometric method with substrates: paraoxon and phenylacetate. PON1 phenotype was determined by double substrate method.Results:Compared to the women in follicular and luteal phase, postmenopausal women have significantly higher concentration of triglyceride [0.9 (0.7–1.3), 0.7 (0.6–1.0) vs. 1.5 (0.9–1.7) mmol/L; P = 0.002], cholesterol [5.10 (4.78–6.10), 5.05 (4.70–5.40) vs. 6.30 (5.73–7.23) mmol/L; P < 0.001], LDL [3.00 (2.56–3.63), 3.00 (2.70–3.70) vs. 3.90 (3.23–4.50) mmol/L; P < 0.001], and apolipoprotein B [0.88 (0.75–1.00), 0.79 (0.68–1.00) vs. 1.07 (0.90–1.24) mmol/L; P = 0.002]. PON1 basal [104 (66–260), 106 (63–250) vs. 93 (71–165) U/L; P = 0.847] and salt-stimulated paraoxonase activity [210 (131–462), 211 (120–442) vs. 180 (139–296) U/L; P = 0.857] as well as arylesterase activity [74 (63–82), 70 (54–91) vs. 70 (60–81) kU/L; P = 0.906] and PON1 phenotype (P = 0.810) were not different in the study groups.Conclusion:There are no differences in PON1 activity and PON1 phenotype between women with regular menstrual cycle and postmenopausal women.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.