Department of Clinical Nutrition, Daping Hospital, Army Medical University (Third Military Medical University), Changjiangzhilu 10#, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, 400042, China.
Institute of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University (Third Military Medical University), Chongqing, China.
Support Care Cancer. 2021 Jul;29(7):4001-4013. doi: 10.1007/s00520-020-05975-z. Epub 2021 Jan 4.
The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) has the potential to gain global acceptance for diagnosing malnutrition. Of which, calf circumference (CC) was proposed as an alternative to evaluate the reduced muscle mass (RMM). The present study aimed to evaluate whether including the hand grip strength (HGS) was helpful for diagnosing malnutrition under the GLIM framework.
We performed a multicenter, observational cohort study including 3998 patients with cancer at two teaching hospitals. The RMM criterion was separately assessed using the calf circumference (CC), or the CC and HGS combined. Accordingly, two methods of GLIM diagnosis were independently developed to determine the nutritional status of the patients. The diagnostic concordance, baseline characteristics, and outcomes of patients were compared across the malnourished-CC-HGS, malnourished-CC+HGS, and well-nourished groups. The Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) was used as a comparator to identify the optimal method.
Malnutrition was identified in 1120 (28%) patients by the CC method and 1060 (26.5%) patients by the CC+HGS method. Compared to the well-nourished group, the malnourished-CC+HGS group (60 patients, 1.5%) had poorer nutritional characteristics, poorer Karnofsky Performance Status scores, poorer global quality of life scores, and higher Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 scores. The severity of malnutrition diagnosed using the CC method (Kappa = 0.136) showed higher agreement with the PG-SGA than the CC+HGS method (Kappa = 0.127).
Compared to CC+HGS, the CC alone appears to be adequate to evaluate RMM under the GLIM framework. A simpler method might facilitate the application of these criteria in clinical settings by increasing efficacy and minimizing missed diagnoses.
全球营养不良领导倡议(GLIM)有可能在诊断营养不良方面获得全球认可。其中,小腿围(CC)被提议作为评估肌肉减少症(RMM)的替代指标。本研究旨在评估在 GLIM 框架下,纳入握力(HGS)是否有助于诊断营养不良。
我们进行了一项多中心、观察性队列研究,纳入了两家教学医院的 3998 名癌症患者。分别使用小腿围(CC)或 CC 和 HGS 联合评估 RMM 标准。据此,独立开发了两种 GLIM 诊断方法来确定患者的营养状况。比较了营养不良-CC-HGS、营养不良-CC+HGS 和营养良好组之间的诊断一致性、基线特征和患者结局。使用患者生成的主观整体评估(PG-SGA)作为比较器来确定最佳方法。
CC 方法识别出 1120 例(28%)患者存在营养不良,CC+HGS 方法识别出 1060 例(26.5%)患者存在营养不良。与营养良好组相比,营养不良-CC+HGS 组(60 例,1.5%)的营养特征更差,卡诺夫斯基表现状态评分更低,整体生活质量评分更差,营养风险筛查 2002 评分更高。CC 方法诊断的营养不良严重程度(Kappa=0.136)与 PG-SGA 的一致性高于 CC+HGS 方法(Kappa=0.127)。
与 CC+HGS 相比,CC 单独用于评估 GLIM 框架下的 RMM 似乎更为充分。更简单的方法可能通过提高疗效和减少漏诊来促进这些标准在临床实践中的应用。