Nutritional Assessments by Bioimpedance Technique in Dialysis Patients.

Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) has been extensively applied in nutritional assessments on the general population, and it is recommended in establishing the diagnosis of malnutrition and sarcopenia. The bioimpedance technique has become a promising modality through which to measure the whole-body composition in dialysis patients, where the presence of subclinical volume overload and sarcopenic obesity may be overlooked by assessing body weight alone. In the past two decades, bioimpedance devices have evolved from applying a single frequency to a range of frequencies (bioimpedance spectroscopy, BIS), in which the latter is incorporated with a three-compartment model that allows for the simultaneous measurement of the volume of overhydration, adipose tissue mass (ATM), and lean tissue mass (LTM). However, clinicians should be aware of common potential limitations, such as the adoption of population-specific prediction equations in some BIA devices. Inherent prediction error does exist in the bioimpedance technique, but the extent to which this error becomes clinically significant remains to be determined. Importantly, reduction in LTM has been associated with increased risk of frailty, hospitalization, and mortality in dialysis patients, whereas the prognostic value of ATM remains debatable. Further studies are needed to determine whether modifications of bioimpedance-derived body composition parameters through nutrition intervention can result in clinical benefits.

Prevention of hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients with hematological malignancies and resolved hepatitis B virus infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with resolved hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection are at risk of HBV reactivation during treatment for hematological malignancies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the data on the efficacy of antiviral prophylaxis for the prevention of HBV reactivation in this group of patients. METHODS: We conducted a systemic literature search of PubMed including MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to 31 January 2019 to identify studies published in English comparing antiviral prophylaxis with no prophylaxis for HBV reactivation in patients treated for hematological malignancies. The search terms used were ("occult hepatitis B" OR "resolved hepatitis B") AND ("reactivation") AND ("haematological malignancy" OR "hematological malignancy" OR "chemotherapy" OR "immunotherapy" OR "chemoimmunotherapy" OR "lymphoma" OR "leukemia" OR "transplant"). The primary outcome was the reactivation of HBV infection. Pooled estimates of relative risk (RR) were calculated. RESULTS: We identified 13 relevant studies including two randomized controlled trials (RCT), one post hoc analysis from RCT and 10 cohort studies. There was a trend towards a lower rate of HBV reactivation using antiviral prophylaxis, but the difference was not significant (RR 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-1.40, P = 0.22). When limiting the analysis to the three prospective studies of patients receiving anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, we found antiviral prophylaxis was associated with a significantly lower risk of HBV reactivation (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06-0.49, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Antiviral prophylaxis reduced the risk of HBV reactivation in patients receiving anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies for hematological malignancies but not in a broader group of patients receiving anticancer therapy.