Changes in Body Composition in Anorexia Nervosa: Predictors of Recovery and Treatment Outcome.

The restoration of body composition (BC) parameters is considered to be one of the most important goals in the treatment of patients with anorexia nervosa (AN). However, little is known about differences between AN diagnostic subtypes [restricting (AN-R) and binge/purging (AN-BP)] and weekly changes in BC during refeeding treatment. Therefore, the main objectives of our study were twofold: 1) to assess the changes in BC throughout nutritional treatment in an AN sample and 2) to analyze predictors of BC changes during treatment, as well as predictors of treatment outcome. The whole sample comprised 261 participants [118 adult females with AN (70 AN-R vs. 48 AN-BP), and 143 healthy controls]. BC was measured weekly during 15 weeks of day-hospital treatment using bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). Assessment measures also included the Eating Disorders Inventory-2, as well as a number of other clinical indices. Overall, the results showed that AN-R and AN-BP patients statistically differed in all BC measures at admission. However, no significant time×group interaction was found for almost all BC parameters. Significant time×group interactions were only found for basal metabolic rate (p = .041) and body mass index (BMI) (p = .035). Multiple regression models showed that the best predictors of pre-post changes in BC parameters (namely fat-free mass, muscular mass, total body water and BMI) were the baseline values of BC parameters. Stepwise predictive logistic regressions showed that only BMI and age were significantly associated with outcome, but not with the percentage of body fat. In conclusion, these data suggest that although AN patients tended to restore all BC parameters during nutritional treatment, only AN-BP patients obtained the same fat mass values as healthy controls. Put succinctly, the best predictors of changes in BC were baseline BC values, which did not, however, seem to influence treatment outcome.

Guidelines for specialized nutritional and metabolic support in the critically-ill patient. Update. Consensus SEMICYUC-SENPE: Obese patient

As a response to metabolic stress, obese critically-ill patients have the same risk of nutritional deficiency as the non-obese and can develop protein-energy malnutrition with accelerated loss of muscle mass. The primary aim of nutritional support in these patients should be to minimize loss of lean mass and accurately evaluate energy expenditure. However, routinely used formulae can overestimate calorie requirements if the patient's actual weight is used. Consequently, the use of adjusted or ideal weight is recommended with these formulae, although indirect calorimetry is the method of choice. Controversy surrounds the question of whether a strict nutritional support criterion, adjusted to the patient's requirements, should be applied or whether a certain degree of hyponutrition should be allowed. Current evidence suggested that hypocaloric nutrition can improve results, partly due to a lower rate of infectious complications and better control of hyperglycemia. Therefore, hypocaloric and hyperproteic nutrition, whether enteral or parenteral, should be standard practice in the nutritional support of critically-ill obese patients when not contraindicated. Widely accepted recommendations consist of no more than 60-70% of requirements or administration of 11-14 kcal/kg current body weight/day or 22-25 kcal/kg ideal weight/day, with 2-2.5 g/kg ideal weight/day of proteins. In a broad sense, hypocaloric-hyperprotein regimens can be considered specific to obese critically-ill patients, although the complications related to comorbidities in these patients may require other therapeutic possibilities to be considered, with specific nutrients for hyperglycemia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and sepsis. However, there are no prospective randomized trials with this type of nutrition in this specific population subgroup and the available data are drawn from the general population of critically-ill patients. Consequently, caution should be exercised when interpreting these data.