Annals of Hematology

, Volume 91, Issue 3, pp 399–406 | Cite as

Nutritional status independently affects quality of life of patients with systemic immunoglobulin light-chain (AL) amyloidosis

  • Riccardo Caccialanza
  • Giovanni Palladini
  • Catherine Klersy
  • Emanuele Cereda
  • Chiara Bonardi
  • Barbara Cameletti
  • Elisabetta Montagna
  • Paola Russo
  • Andrea Foli
  • Paolo Milani
  • Francesca Lavatelli
  • Giampaolo Merlini
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Nutritional status is an independent prognostic factor in immunoglobulin light-chain amyloidosis (AL), but its influence on quality of life (QoL) is unknown. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the association between nutritional status and QoL in AL patients at diagnosis. One hundred and fifty consecutive patients with biopsy-proven AL were assessed for nutritional status by anthropometry [body mass index, unintentional weight loss (WL) in the previous 6 months and mid-arm muscle circumference (MAMC)], biochemistry (serum prealbumin), and semiquantitative food intake at referral. QoL was assessed by the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form General Health Survey. The composite physical component summary (PCS) and the mental component summary (MCS) for AL outpatients were 36.2 ± 10.1 and 44.9 ± 11.3, respectively (p < 0.001 for both vs the population norms of 50). In multivariate linear regression models adjusted for gender, age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, the number of organs involved, the severity of cardiac damage, C-reactive protein, energy intake, and WL, PCS was significantly lower for serum prealbumin <200 mg/L and MAMC <10th percentile (adjusted difference 3.8, 95% CI 0.18–7.5, p = 0.040 and 5.3, 95% CI 2.0–8.7, p = 0.002, respectively). MCS was decreased by 0.47 (95% CI 0.18–0.75, p = 0.002) for each kilogram of body weight lost in the previous 6 months. Nutritional status independently affects QoL in AL patients since diagnosis. Nutritional evaluation should be integral part of the clinical assessment of AL patients. Nutritional support intervention trials are warranted in such patients' population.

Keywords

Amyloidosis Nutritional status Malnutrition Prealbumin Quality of life 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Conflict of interest

All authors approved the final version of the manuscript and indicated no potential conflicts of interest.

Funding

This study was supported by grants from the Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.

References

  1. 1.
    Merlini G, Stone MJ (2006) Dangerous small B-cell clones. Blood 108:2520–2530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dispenzieri A, Gertz M, Kyle R et al (2004) Serum cardiac troponins and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide: a staging system for primary systemic amyloidosis. J Clin Oncol 22:3751–3757PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Palladini G, Barassi A, Klersy C et al (2010) The combination of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) at presentation and changes in N-terminal natriuretic peptide type B (NT-proBNP) after chemotherapy best predicts survival in AL amyloidosis. Blood 116:3426–3430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caccialanza R, Palladini G, Klersy C et al (2006) Nutritional status of outpatients with systemic immunoglobulin light-chain amyloidosis (AL). Am J Clin Nutr 83:350–354PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ravasco P, Monteiro-Grillo I, Vidal PM, Camilo ME (2004) Cancer: disease and nutrition are key determinants of patients' quality of life. Support Care Cancer 12:246–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marín Caro MM, Laviano A, Pichard C (2007) Impact of nutrition on quality of life during cancer. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 10:480–487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Seldin DC, Anderson JJ, Sanchorawala V et al (2004) Improvement in quality of life of patients with AL amyloidosis treated with high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation. Blood 104:1888–1893PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    European Medicines Agency (2005) Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. Doc. ref. EMEA/CHMP/EWP/139391/2004. London (UK)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (2006) Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arbustini E, Verga L, Concardi M et al (2002) Electron and immuno-electron microscopy of abdominal fat identifies and characterizes amyloid fibrils in suspected cardiac amyloidosis. Amyloid 9:108–114PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gertz M, Comenzo R, Falk R et al (2004) Definition of organ involvement and treatment response in immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis (AL): a consensus opinion from the 10th International Symposium on Amyloid and Amyloidosis, Tours, France, 18–22 April 2004. Am J Hematol 79:319–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC et al (1982) Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 5:649–655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Quetelet A (1835) Sur l'Homme et le Developpement de ses Facultes, ou Essai des Physique Sociale (On Man and the Development of his Faculties, or Treatise on Social Physics). Bachelier, ParisGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frisancho AR (1981) New norms of upper limb fat and muscle areas for assessment of nutritional status. Am J Clin Nutr 34:2540–2545PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    WHO Expert Committee (1995) The use and interpretation of anthropometry. WHO Technical Report Series n. 854. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fearon KC, Voss AC, Hustead DS, Cancer Cachexia Study Group (2006) Definition of cancer cachexia: effect of weight loss, reduced food intake, and systemic inflammation on functional status and prognosis. Am J Clin Nutr 83:1345–1350PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Lu JF, Sherbourne CD (1994) The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), III: tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 32:40–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36), I: conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE (1993) The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), II: psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 31:247–263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Bayliss MS et al (1995) Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care 33:AS264–AS279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M (2001) SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales: a manual for users of version 1, 2nd edn. QualityMetric Inc., LincolnGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Gandek B (2000) SF-36 health survey: manual and interpretation guide. QualityMetric Inc., LincolnGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Istituto Scotti Bassani (1989) Atlante Ragionato di Alimentazione. Istituto Scotti Bassani per la ricerca e l'informazione scientifica e nutrizionale, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca per gli Alimenti e la Nutrizione (I.N.R.A.N.) (2000) Tabelle di Composizione degli Alimenti. Aggiornamento 2000. EDRA Medical Publishing and New MediaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Frankenfield DC, Muth ER, Rowe WA (1998) The Harris–Benedict studies of human basal metabolism: history and limitations. J Am Diet Assoc 98:439–445PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    STATA Corporation (2010) STATA statistical software: release 11.1. College StationGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Coates A, Gebski V, Bishop JF et al (1987) Improving the quality of life during chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: a comparison of intermittent and continuous treatment strategies. N Engl J Med 317:1490–1495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bishop JF, Dewar J, Toner GC et al (1999) Initial paclitaxel improves outcome compared with CMFP combination chemotherapy as front-line therapy in untreated metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 17:2355–2364PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Seidman AD, Hudis CA, Norton L (1995) Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center experience with paclitaxel in the treatment of breast cancer: from advanced disease to adjuvant therapy. Semin Oncol 22(S8):3–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ravasco P, Monteiro Grillo I, Camilo M (2007) Cancer wasting and quality of life react to early individualized nutritional counselling! Clin Nutr 26:7–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ingenbleek Y, Young V (1994) Transthyretin (prealbumin) in health and disease: nutritional implications. Annu Rev Nutr 14:495–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vasiljevic N, Sonja Ralevic S, Marinkovic J et al (2008) The assessment of health-related quality of life in relation to the body mass index value in the urban population of Belgrade. Health Qual Life Outcomes 6:106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Guler N, Kuzu F (2009) The health-related quality of life of the health professionals working in the primary healthcare centers and its correlation with selected sociodemographic factors in Sivas, a central Anatolian city. Scientific Research and Essay 4:1547–1552Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Muscaritoli M, Anker SD, Argilés J et al (2010) Consensus definition of sarcopenia, cachexia and pre-cachexia: joint document elaborated by Special Interest Groups (SIG) “cachexia-anorexia in chronic wasting diseases” and “nutrition in geriatrics”. Clin Nutr 29:154–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bozzetti F, Mariani L (2009) Defining and classifying cancer cachexia: a proposal by the SCRINIO Working Group. JPEN 33:361–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dubrey SW, Cha K, Anderson J et al (1998) The clinical features of immunoglobulin light-chain amyloidosis (AL) with heart involvement. Q J Med 91:141–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rutishauser IH (2005) Dietary intake measurements. Public Health Nutr 8:1100–1107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cereda E, Vanotti A (2008) Short dietary assessment improves muscle dysfunction identification by Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index in uncomplicated institutionalised patients over 70 years old. Clin Nutr 27:126–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Iversen PO, Wisløff F, Gulbrandsen N (2010) Reduced nutritional status among multiple myeloma patients during treatment with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell support. Clin Nutr 29:488–491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Arends J, Bodoky G, Bozzetti F et al (2006) ESPEN Guidelines on enteral nutrition: non-surgical oncology. Clin Nutr 25:245–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bozzetti F, Arends J, Lundholm K et al (2009) ESPEN Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition: non-surgical oncology. Clin Nutr 28:445–454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Riccardo Caccialanza
    • 1
  • Giovanni Palladini
    • 2
  • Catherine Klersy
    • 2
    • 3
  • Emanuele Cereda
    • 1
  • Chiara Bonardi
    • 1
  • Barbara Cameletti
    • 1
  • Elisabetta Montagna
    • 1
  • Paola Russo
    • 2
  • Andrea Foli
    • 2
  • Paolo Milani
    • 2
  • Francesca Lavatelli
    • 2
  • Giampaolo Merlini
    • 2
  1. 1.Nutrition and Dietetics ServiceFondazione IRCCS Policlinico San MatteoPaviaItaly
  2. 2.Amyloidosis Research and Treatment Center, Biotechnology Research Laboratories, Department of BiochemistryFondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo and University of PaviaPaviaItaly
  3. 3.Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology ServiceFondazione IRCCS Policlinico San MatteoPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations