ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of different nutritional screening tools, including NRS-2002, PG-SGA, and NUTRISCORE for the detection of malnutrition in oncology outpatients. STUDY DESIGN: A descriptive study. Place and Duration of the Study: Daily Chemotherapy Unit, Umraniye Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkiye, between June and July 2021. METHODOLOGY: A total of 69 patients were included in the study, receiving cancer therapy in an outpatient setting. The NRS-2002, PG-SGA, and NUTRISCORE scores were calculated to determine the nutritional status. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 56.74 ± 13.48 years, and 59.4% were females. The mean BMI was 27.29 ± 5.27 kg/m2. Among the patients, 55.1% had insufficient nutritional intake or were at risk of malnutrition according to the NRS-2002, 40.6% according to NUTRISCORE, and 59.4% according to the PG-SGA. There was a significant agreement between the results of the NRS-2002 and PG-SGA in a McNemar test (Kappa: 0.320, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: NRS-2002 and PG-SGA tools offered greater sensitivity in terms of capturing more patients in the precachectic state than NUTRISCORE. Among these, the NRS-2002 is a shorter test, and thus, would seem to be more practical than the PG-SGA. KEY WORDS: Oncology, Malnutrition, Screening tools, NRS-2002, PG-SGA, NUTRISCORE.
Subject(s)
Malnutrition , Mass Screening , Neoplasms , Nutrition Assessment , Nutritional Status , Outpatients , Humans , Female , Malnutrition/diagnosis , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/complications , Adult , Aged , Mass Screening/methods , TurkeyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Urotensin II is a potent vasoactive peptide that has been implicated in the pathophysiology of many diseases. There is no study reporting the role and level of this peptide in recipients of kidney transplant. So we aimed to study the plasma levels of urotensin II in this group of patients. METHODS: Plasma urotensin II levels were analyzed in 110 subjects, who were divided into three groups: group 1 (35 kidney transplant recipients), group 2 (36 patients with chronic kidney disease), and group 3 (39 healthy controls). RESULTS: Analysis of logarithmic transformation of urotensin II, i.e. log (urotensin II × 1000) levels, with a one-way analysis of variance yielded a P value of 0.001. Post-hoc analysis showed significantly higher log (urotensin II × 1000) levels in group 1 than groups 2 and 3 (P = 0.001 and 0.017, respectively). One of the important features of the subjects of this group was that they were taking immunosuppressive drugs because of renal transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: High urotensin II levels in recipients of kidney transplants could be drug-related (immunosuppressive drugs) and may be of practical importance that may be used to improve the long-term outcome of the patients.