Muscaritoli, Maurizio

Abstract Background The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) introduced an approach for malnutrition diagnosis in 2019 that comprised screening followed by assessment of three phenotypic criteria (weight loss, low body mass index [BMI], and low muscle mass) and two etiologic criteria (reduced food intake/assimilation and inflammation/disease burden). This planned update reconsiders the GLIM framework based on published knowledge and experience over the past 5 years. Methods A working group ( n = 43 members) conducted a literature search spanning 2019–2024 using the keywords “Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition or GLIM.” Prior GLIM guidance activities for using the criteria on muscle mass and inflammation were reviewed. Successive rounds of revision and review were used to achieve consensus. Results More than 400 scientific reports were published in peer‐reviewed journals, forming the basis of 10 systematic reviews, some including meta‐analyses of GLIM validity that indicate strong construct and predictive validity. Limitations and future priorities are discussed. Working group findings suggest that assessment of low muscle mass should be guided by experience and available technological resources. Clinical judgment may suffice to evaluate the inflammation/disease burden etiologic criterion. No revisions of the weight loss, low BMI, or reduced food intake/assimilation criteria are suggested. After two rounds of review and revision, the working group secured 100% agreement with the conclusions reported in the 5‐year update. Conclusion Ongoing initiatives target priorities that include malnutrition risk screening procedures, GLIM adaptation to the intensive care setting, assessment in support of the reduced food intake/assimilation criterion, and determination of malnutrition in obesity.

Abstract Background The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) approach to malnutrition diagnosis is based on assessment of three phenotypic (weight loss, low body mass index, and reduced skeletal muscle mass) and two etiologic (reduced food intake/assimilation and disease burden/inflammation) criteria, with diagnosis confirmed by fulfillment of any combination of at least one phenotypic and at least one etiologic criterion. The original GLIM description provided limited guidance regarding assessment of inflammation, and this has been a factor impeding further implementation of the GLIM criteria. We now seek to provide practical guidance for assessment of inflammation. Methods A GLIM‐constituted working group with 36 participants developed consensus‐based guidance through a modified Delphi review. A multiround review and revision process served to develop seven guidance statements. Results The final round of review was highly favorable, with 99% overall “agree” or “strongly agree” responses. The presence of acute or chronic disease, infection, or injury that is usually associated with inflammatory activity may be used to fulfill the GLIM disease burden/inflammation criterion, without the need for laboratory confirmation. However, we recommend that recognition of underlying medical conditions commonly associated with inflammation be supported by C‐reactive protein (CRP) measurements when the contribution of inflammatory components is uncertain. Interpretation of CRP requires that consideration be given to the method, reference values, and units (milligrams per deciliter or milligram per liter) for the clinical laboratory that is being used. Conclusion Confirmation of inflammation should be guided by clinical judgment based on underlying diagnosis or condition, clinical signs, or CRP.

Abstract The term sarcopenia was introduced in 1988. The original definition was a “muscle loss” of the appendicular muscle mass in the older people as measured by dual energy x‐ray absorptiometry (DXA). In 2010, the definition was altered to be low muscle mass together with low muscle function and this was agreed upon as reported in a number of consensus papers. The Society of Sarcopenia, Cachexia and Wasting Disorders supports the recommendations of more recent consensus conferences, i.e. that rapid screening, such as with the SARC‐F questionnaire, should be utilized with a formal diagnosis being made by measuring grip strength or chair stand together with DXA estimation of appendicular muscle mass (indexed for height2). Assessments of the utility of ultrasound and creatine dilution techniques are ongoing. Use of ultrasound may not be easily reproducible. Primary sarcopenia is aging associated (mediated) loss of muscle mass. Secondary sarcopenia (or disease‐related sarcopenia) has predominantly focused on loss of muscle mass without the emphasis on muscle function. Diseases that can cause muscle wasting (i.e. secondary sarcopenia) include malignant cancer, COPD, heart failure, and renal failure and others. Management of sarcopenia should consist of resistance exercise in combination with a protein intake of 1 to 1.5 g/kg/day. There is insufficient evidence that vitamin D and anabolic steroids are beneficial. These recommendations apply to both primary (age‐related) sarcopenia and secondary (disease related) sarcopenia. Secondary sarcopenia also needs appropriate treatment of the underlying disease. It is important that primary care health professionals become aware of and make the diagnosis of age‐related and disease‐related sarcopenia. It is important to address the risk factors for sarcopenia, particularly low physical activity and sedentary behavior in the general population, using a life‐long approach. There is a need for more clinical research into the appropriate measurement for muscle mass and the management of sarcopenia. Accordingly, this position statement provides recommendations on the management of sarcopenia and how to progress the knowledge and recognition of sarcopenia.

Abstract Background Cachexia has significant impact on the patients' quality of life and prognosis. It is frequently observed in patients with cancer, especially in advanced stages, but prevalence data for the overall population are lacking. Good quality estimates of cancer cachexia in general and for each of the major cancer types would be highly relevant for potential treatment development efforts in this field. Both the USA and European Union (EU) have implemented special clinical development rules for such rare disorders what are called ‘orphan diseases’. The cut‐off level for a disease to be considered an orphan disease in the USA is 200 000 people (0.06% of the population) and EU is 5 per 10 000 people (0.05% of the population). Methods For this systematic review, we searched at PubMed (from inception to 31 January 2018) to identify clinical studies that assessed the prevalence of cachexia in cancer patients at risk. Studies reporting the prevalence of either cancer cachexia or wasting disease in the top‐10 cancer types and 4 other selected cancer types known to be particularly commonly complicated by cachexia were included in this analysis (i.e. prostate cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, melanoma, endometrial cancer, thyroid cancer, urinary bladder cancer, non‐hodgkin lymphoma, lung cancer, kidney and renal pelvis cancer, head and neck cancer, gastric cancer, liver cancer, and pancreatic cancer). We calculated the current burden of cancer cachexia, disease by disease, in the USA and in the EU and compared them to the current guidelines for the definition of orphan disease status. Results We estimate that in 2014 in the USA, a total of 527 100 patients (16.5 subjects per 10 000 people of the total population), and in 2013 in the EU, a total of 800 300 patients (15.8 subjects per 10 000 people of the total population) suffered from cancer cachexia (of any kind). In the 14 separately analysed cancer types, the prevalence of cancer cachexia in the USA ranged between 11 300 (0.4/10 000, gastric cancer) and 92 000 patients (2.9/10 000, lung cancer) and in the EU between 14 300 (0.3/10 000, melanoma of the skin) and 150 100 (3.0/10 000, colorectal cancer). Conclusions The absolute number of patients affected by cancer cachexia in each cancer group is lower than the defined thresholds for orphan diseases in the USA and EU. Cancer cachexia in each subgroup separately should be considered an orphan disease.