Nicolette J Wierdsma1, Petula Nijeboer2, Marian A E de van der Schueren3, Marijke Berkenpas4, Ad A van Bodegraven5, Chris J J Mulder6. 1. Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, VU University Medical Centre, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: N.Wierdsma@vumc.nl. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Celiac Centre Amsterdam, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: P.Nijeboer@vumc.nl. 3. Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, VU University Medical Centre, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: M.devanderSchueren@vumc.nl. 4. Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, VU University Medical Centre, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: M.Berkenpas@vumc.nl. 5. Department of Gastroenterology, Celiac Centre Amsterdam, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Internal Medicine, Gastroenterology and Geriatrics, ATRIUM-ORBIS Medical Centre, PO Box 5500, 6130 MB, Sittard, The Netherlands. Electronic address: v.Bodegraven@vumc.nl. 6. Department of Gastroenterology, Celiac Centre Amsterdam, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: cjmulder@vumc.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Refractory celiac disease type II (RCDII) and EATL (Enteropathy Associated T-cell Lymphoma) are (pre)malignant complications of celiac disease (CD). Data on malnutrition and intestinal absorption is lacking in these patients. Therefore, the aim of the study is to comprehensively assess nutritional status and intestinal absorption capacity of patients with RCDII and EATL, compared with data of newly diagnosed CD patients. METHODS: Observational study in tertiary care setting in RCDII (n = 24, 63.8 ± 8.2 y), EATL (n = 25, 62.3 ± 5.7 y) and CD patients (n = 43, 45.6 ± 14.8 y). At diagnosis, anthropometry (BMI, unintentional weight loss, fat-free mass index (FFMI), handgrip strength (HGS), nutritional intake, fecal losses and Resting Energy Expenditure (REE)) were assessed. RESULTS: Low BMI (<18.5) was more often observed in RCDII patients than in CD or EATL patients (in 33%, 12% and 12%, respectively, p = 0.029). EATL patients more frequently had unintentional weight loss (>10%) than CD or RCDII patients (in 58%, 19% and 39% of patients, respectively; p = 0.005/0.082). Energy malabsorption (<85%) was detected in 44% and 33% of RCDII and EATL patients, vs 21.6% in CD (NS). Fecal energy losses were higher in RCDII than in CD patients (589 ± 451 vs 277 ± 137 kcal/d, p = 0.017). REE was underestimated by predicted-REE with>10% in 60% of RCDII, 89% of EATL, and 38% of CD patients (p = 0.006). Low FFMI and HGS were detected in one third and two thirds of all patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The nutritional status of patients with RCDII and EATL is inferior compared with untreated naïve CD patients at presentation. Both malabsorption as well as hypermetabolism contribute to malnutrition.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Refractory celiac disease type II (RCDII) and EATL (Enteropathy Associated T-cell Lymphoma) are (pre)malignant complications of celiac disease (CD). Data on malnutrition and intestinal absorption is lacking in these patients. Therefore, the aim of the study is to comprehensively assess nutritional status and intestinal absorption capacity of patients with RCDII and EATL, compared with data of newly diagnosed CDpatients. METHODS: Observational study in tertiary care setting in RCDII (n = 24, 63.8 ± 8.2 y), EATL (n = 25, 62.3 ± 5.7 y) and CDpatients (n = 43, 45.6 ± 14.8 y). At diagnosis, anthropometry (BMI, unintentional weight loss, fat-free mass index (FFMI), handgrip strength (HGS), nutritional intake, fecal losses and Resting Energy Expenditure (REE)) were assessed. RESULTS: Low BMI (<18.5) was more often observed in RCDII patients than in CD or EATL patients (in 33%, 12% and 12%, respectively, p = 0.029). EATL patients more frequently had unintentional weight loss (>10%) than CD or RCDII patients (in 58%, 19% and 39% of patients, respectively; p = 0.005/0.082). Energy malabsorption (<85%) was detected in 44% and 33% of RCDII and EATL patients, vs 21.6% in CD (NS). Fecal energy losses were higher in RCDII than in CDpatients (589 ± 451 vs 277 ± 137 kcal/d, p = 0.017). REE was underestimated by predicted-REE with>10% in 60% of RCDII, 89% of EATL, and 38% of CDpatients (p = 0.006). Low FFMI and HGS were detected in one third and two thirds of all patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The nutritional status of patients with RCDII and EATL is inferior compared with untreated naïve CDpatients at presentation. Both malabsorption as well as hypermetabolism contribute to malnutrition.
Authors: P Nijeboer; Rlj van Wanrooij; T van Gils; N J Wierdsma; G J Tack; B I Witte; H J Bontkes; O Visser; Cjj Mulder; G Bouma Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Jolanda M W van de Water; Petula Nijeboer; Laura R de Baaij; Jessy Zegers; Gerd Bouma; Otto J Visser; Donald L van der Peet; Chris J J Mulder; Wilhelmus J H J Meijerink Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-11-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Md Amran Gazi; Subhasish Das; Mustafa Mahfuz; Md Mehedi Hasan; Md Shabab Hossain; Shah Mohammad Fahim; Md Ashraful Alam; Zannatun Noor; Carol A Gilchrist; William A Petri; M Masudur Rahman; Ramendra Nath Mazumder; Rashidul Haque; Shafiqul Alam Sarker; Tahmeed Ahmed Journal: BMJ Open Gastroenterol Date: 2019-04-20