Alessio Molfino1, George A Kaysen2, Glenn M Chertow3, Julie Doyle4, Cynthia Delgado4, Tjien Dwyer2, Alessandro Laviano5, Filippo Rossi Fanelli5, Kirsten L Johansen4. 1. Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, Davis, California; Department of Clinical Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: alessio.molfino@uniroma1.it. 2. Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, Davis, California. 3. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California. 4. Division of Nephrology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Nephrology Section, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California. 5. Department of Clinical Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the performance of appetite assessment tools among patients receiving hemodialysis (HD). DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SUBJECTS: Two hundred twenty-one patients receiving HD enrolled in seven dialysis facilities in Northern California. INTERVENTION: We assessed 5 appetite assessment tools (self-assessment of appetite, subjective assessment of appetite, visual analog scale [VAS], Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy [FAACT] score, and the Anorexia Questionnaire [AQ]). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reported food intake, normalized protein catabolic rate, and change in body weight were used as criterion measures, and we assessed associations among the appetite tools and biomarkers associated with nutrition and inflammation. Patients were asked to report their appetite and the percentage of food eaten (from 0% to 100%) during the last meal compared to usual intake. RESULTS: Fifty-eight (26%) patients reported food intake ≤ 50% (defined as poor appetite). The prevalence of anorexia was 12% by self-assessment of appetite, 6% by subjective assessment of appetite, 24% by VAS, 17% by FAACT score, and 12% by AQ. All the tools were significantly associated with food intake ≤ 50% (P < .001), except self-assessment of appetite. The FAACT score and the VAS had the strongest association with food intake ≤ 50% (C-statistic 0.80 and 0.76). Patients with food intake ≤ 50% reported weight loss more frequently than patients without low intake (36% vs 22%) and weight gain less frequently (19% vs 35%; P = .03). Normalized protein catabolic rate was lower among anorexic patients based on the VAS (1.1 ± 0.3 vs 1.2 ± 0.3, P = .03). Ln interleukin-6 correlated inversely with food intake (P = .03), but neither interleukin-6 nor C-reactive protein correlated with any of the appetite tools. Furthermore, only the self-assessment of appetite was significantly associated with serum albumin (P = .02), prealbumin (P = .02) and adiponectin concentrations (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Alternative appetite assessment tools yielded widely different estimates of the prevalence of anorexia in HD. When considering self-reported food intake as the criterion standard for anorexia, the FAACT score and VAS discriminated patients reasonably well.
OBJECTIVE: To test the performance of appetite assessment tools among patients receiving hemodialysis (HD). DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SUBJECTS: Two hundred twenty-one patients receiving HD enrolled in seven dialysis facilities in Northern California. INTERVENTION: We assessed 5 appetite assessment tools (self-assessment of appetite, subjective assessment of appetite, visual analog scale [VAS], Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy [FAACT] score, and the Anorexia Questionnaire [AQ]). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reported food intake, normalized protein catabolic rate, and change in body weight were used as criterion measures, and we assessed associations among the appetite tools and biomarkers associated with nutrition and inflammation. Patients were asked to report their appetite and the percentage of food eaten (from 0% to 100%) during the last meal compared to usual intake. RESULTS: Fifty-eight (26%) patients reported food intake ≤ 50% (defined as poor appetite). The prevalence of anorexia was 12% by self-assessment of appetite, 6% by subjective assessment of appetite, 24% by VAS, 17% by FAACT score, and 12% by AQ. All the tools were significantly associated with food intake ≤ 50% (P < .001), except self-assessment of appetite. The FAACT score and the VAS had the strongest association with food intake ≤ 50% (C-statistic 0.80 and 0.76). Patients with food intake ≤ 50% reported weight loss more frequently than patients without low intake (36% vs 22%) and weight gain less frequently (19% vs 35%; P = .03). Normalized protein catabolic rate was lower among anorexic patients based on the VAS (1.1 ± 0.3 vs 1.2 ± 0.3, P = .03). Ln interleukin-6 correlated inversely with food intake (P = .03), but neither interleukin-6 nor C-reactive protein correlated with any of the appetite tools. Furthermore, only the self-assessment of appetite was significantly associated with serum albumin (P = .02), prealbumin (P = .02) and adiponectin concentrations (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Alternative appetite assessment tools yielded widely different estimates of the prevalence of anorexia in HD. When considering self-reported food intake as the criterion standard for anorexia, the FAACT score and VAS discriminated patients reasonably well.
Authors: Alessio Molfino; Steven B Heymsfield; Fansan Zhu; Peter Kotanko; Nathan W Levin; Tjien Dwyer; George A Kaysen Journal: J Ren Nutr Date: 2013-04-24 Impact factor: 3.655
Authors: Juan Jesús Carrero; Peter Stenvinkel; Lilian Cuppari; T Alp Ikizler; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh; George Kaysen; William E Mitch; S Russ Price; Christoph Wanner; Angela Y M Wang; Pieter ter Wee; Harold A Franch Journal: J Ren Nutr Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 3.655
Authors: M Hiesmayr; K Schindler; E Pernicka; C Schuh; A Schoeniger-Hekele; P Bauer; A Laviano; A D Lovell; M Mouhieddine; T Schuetz; S M Schneider; P Singer; C Pichard; P Howard; C Jonkers; I Grecu; O Ljungqvist Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2009-07-01 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Mitja Lainscak; Jerneja Farkas; Sophie Frantal; Pierre Singer; Peter Bauer; Michael Hiesmayr; Karin Schindler Journal: Eur J Clin Invest Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 4.686
Authors: M Muscaritoli; S D Anker; J Argilés; Z Aversa; J M Bauer; G Biolo; Y Boirie; I Bosaeus; T Cederholm; P Costelli; K C Fearon; A Laviano; M Maggio; F Rossi Fanelli; S M Schneider; A Schols; C C Sieber Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2010-01-08 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Jennifer E Flythe; Niklas Karlsson; Anna Sundgren; Paul Cordero; Amanda Grandinetti; Henry Cremisi; Anna Rydén Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2021-06-23 Impact factor: 2.388