Advertisement

The journal of nutrition, health & aging

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 1–3 | Cite as

Screening for Malnutrition (Undernutrition) in Primary Care

  • John E. Morley
Editorial

Key words

Brain communication muscle function 

The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) has recently defined malnutrition as a condition having at least one of 3 phenotypic criteria, i.e., non-volitional weight loss, low body mass index and reduced muscle mass, as well as either reduced food intake assimilation (either poor oral intake or malabsorption) or disease usually associated with an inflammatory process (1).The GLIM consensus is important as it is unfortunately true that malnutrition remains a “Skeleton in the closet” as its presence is poorly recognized among older individuals (2, 3). Miller et al (4) have undertaken a systematic review of screening tools for malnutrition. They categorized unintentional weight loss as being due to 3 syndromes viz cachexia, malnutrition (limited intake or malabsorption) and sarcopenia. This was despite the fact that while sarcopenia is associated with muscle loss it is rarely associated with weight loss and is often associated with weight gain leading to sarcopenic obesity (5).

The 10th edition of the International classification of Disease has recognized sarcopenia as an independent condition (6). For sarcopenia, Miller et al (4) supported the use of the SARC-F which has high specificity but low sensitivity (7-9). This is in keeping with both the recent European and International guidelines for sarcopenia (10, 11). Specificity can be improved to some extent by coupling the questions with a measurement of mid-calf circumference (12, 13). Tanaka et al (14) reported that SARC-F positive individuals had lower walking speed and walked less distance in a 6-minute walk as well as having decreased upper and lower limb strength A meta-analysis comparing SARC-F to 3 consensus definitions for sarcopenia in 12,800 persons found excellent specificity, suggesting that it is a good test for screening for sarcopenia (15). Ishii et al (16) have suggested that measuring age, grip strength and calf circumference has both excellent sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing sarcopenia. Both SARC-F and Ishii’s tool are good tools to identify persons who do not have sarcopenia (17).

Before discussing cachexia it is important to recognize that all the tools used to measure lean mass have less than perfect sensitivity and specificity when compared to muscle mass measured by Magnetic Resonance Imaging (18). This is in contrast to using the D3-creatine dilution technique to measure muscle mass which has a stronger correlation with MRI measurements and with falls and gait speed (18, 19). This calls into question whether the consensus definitions for sarcopenia are flawed due to the techniques used to measure muscle mass.

Evans et al (20) defined cachexia as a “complex metabolic syndrome” due to severe disease resulting in muscle loss, “with or without fat loss.” The Cachexia Score (CASCO) is identified by Miller et al (4) as the best screening test available for cachexia (21). A quicker screen which may be equally effective is the Glasgow prognostic score which consists of measuring C-Reactive Protein (CRP, >10mg/L) and albumin (<35g/dl) (22). More recently, it has been suggested that a ratio of CRP/albumin may be more sensitive (23).

Miller et al (4) conclude that the 3-MinNS developed in Singapore (24, 25) was the best screen for malnutrition out of the 19 screening tools they studied. This was because it included all the components of the malnutrition definition i.e., unintentional weight loss, nutritional intake, BMI, muscle wasting and conditions that increase the chance of having poor nutrition. The GLIM consensus provided a number of screening tests including the Nutrition Risk Screening (NRS) – 2002 (26), the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) (27, 28) and the MiniNutritional Assessment – Short Form (MNASF)(29-31). One tool has been developed to identify anorexia before weight loss occurs. This tool – the Simplified Nutrition Appetite Questionnaire (SNAQ) has been shown to be highly useful for detecting persons at risk for weight loss 6 months after testing (32-35).

In persons over 50 years of age physical frailty phenotype has been identified as a way to identify persons at risk for weight loss (36). The simple FRAIL questionnaire has been validated as a method to recognize persons who are at risk of poor outcomes (37, 38) and it is recommended by the Australian government as a screening test for all persons over 65 years of age (39). Major causes of a positive FRAIL score are sarcopenia and unintentional weight loss (40, 41).

In persons who screen positive treatable causes of weight loss should be identified. The “MEALS-ON-WHEELS” mnemonic is a simple way to recognize the common causes of weight loss (Table 1) (42, 43). Persons with sarcopenia should at the minimum be place in an exercise program including resistance exercise and a high protein (1-1.5g/kg) diet (43, 44). The paper by Miller et al (4) draws attention to the fact that simple screening tests are available for health professionals to recognize malnutrition early, at a time where interventions are more likely to be successful.
Table 1

“Meals-on-Wheels” mnemonic for the treatable causes of malnutrition

Medications, e.g., digoxin, fluoxetine, theophylline

Emotional – depression

Anorexia nervosa, alcoholism, elder abuse

Late life paranoia

Swallowing problems

Oral factors

Nosocomial infections, e.g., tuberculosis, H. pylori

Wandering and other dementia related factors

Hyperthyroidism, hypercalcemia, hypoadrenalism

Enteral problems, e.g., celiac disease, pancreatic insufficiency

Eating problems

Low salt, low cholesterol and other therapeutic diets

Stones (cholecystitis)

Disclosures: The authors declare there are no conflicts

References

  1. 1.
    Jensen GL, Cederholm T, Correia MITD, et al. GLIM criteria for the diagnosis of malnutrition: A consensus report from the Global clinical nutrition community. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2018;Sep 2 doi: 10.1002/jpen.1440 [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sharma Y, Thompson C, Shari R, et al. Malnutrition in acutely unwell hospitalized elderly–“The skeletons are still rattling in the hospital closet.” J Nutr Health Aging 2017;21:1210–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marshall S. Why is the skeleton still in the hospital closet? A look at the complex aetiology of protein-energy malnutrition and its implications for the nutrition care team. J Nutr Health Aging. 2018;22:26–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miller J, Wells L, Nwulu U, et al. Validated screening tools for the assessment of cachexia, sarcopenia and malnutrition: A systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr 2018 (In press).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baumgartner RN, Wayne SJ, Waters DL, et al. Sarcopenic obesity predicts instrumental activities of daily living disability in the elderly. Obes Res 2004;12:1995–2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cao L, Morley JE. Sarcopenia is recognized as an independent condition by an International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) code. 2016;17:675–677.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Woo J, Leung J, Morley JE. Validating the SARC-F: A suitable community screening tool for sarcopenia? J Am Med Dir Assoc 2014;15:630–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bahat G, Yilmaz O, Kilic C, et al. Performance of SARC-F in regard to sarcopenia definitions, muscle mass and functional measures. J Nutr Health Aging 2018;22:898–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Malmstrom TK, Miller DK, Simonsick EM, et al. SARC-F: A symptom score to predict persons with sarcopenia at risk for poor functional outcomes. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2016;7:28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, et al. Sarcopenia: Revised European Consensus on Definition and Diagnosis. Age Ageing 2018 Oct 12; DOI:1093/ageing/afy169 [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dent E, Morley JE, Cruz-Jentoft AJ, et al. International Clinical Practice Guidelines for Sarcopenia (ICFSR): Screening, diagnosis and management. J Nutr Health Aging 2018 (In press).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barbosa-Silva TG, Menezes AM, Bielemann RM, et al; Grupo de Estudos em Composição Corporal e Nutrição (COCONUT). Enhancing SARC-F: Improving sarcopenia screening in the clinical practice. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2016;17:1136–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yang M, Hu X, Xie L, et al. Screening sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults: SARC-F vs SARC-F combined with calf circumference (SARC-CalF). J A Med Dir Assoc 2018;19:277.e1–277.e8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tanaka S, Kamiya K, Hamazaki N, et al. Utility of SARC-F for assessing physical function in elderly patients with cardiovascular disease. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2017;18:176–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ida S, Kaneko R, Murata K. SARC-F for screening of sarcopenia among older adults: A meta-analysis of screening test accuracy. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2018;19:685–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ishii S, Tanaka T, Shibasaki K, et al. Development of a simple screening test for sarcopenia in older adults. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2014;14(suppl 1):93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Locquet M, Beaudart C, Reginster JY, et al. Comparison of the performance of five screening methods for sarcopenia. Clin Epidemiol 2017;10:71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clark RV, Walker AC, O’Connor-Semmes RL, et al. Total body skeletal muscle mass: Estimation by creatine (methyl-d3) dilution in humans. J Appl Physiol (1985) 2014;116:1605–1613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cawthon PM, Orwoll ES, Peters KE, et al; Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Study Research Group. Strong relation between muscle mass determined by D3-creatine dilution, physical performance and incidence of falls and mobility limitations in a prospective cohort of older men. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2018; Jun 12. Doi: 10.1093/Gerona/gly129. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shankaran M, Czerwieniec G, Fessler C, et al. Dilution of oral D3 -Creatine to measure creatine pool size and estimate skeletal muscle mass: Development of a correction algorithm. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2018;9:540–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Argiles JM, Betancourt A, Guardia-Olmos J, et al. Validation of the Cachexia SCOre (CASCO). Staging cancer patients: The use of miniCASCO as a simplified tool. Front Physiol 2017;8:92. Doi: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00092.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Douglas E, McMillan DC. Towards a simple objective framework for the investigation and treatment of cancer cachexia: The Glasgow Prognostic score. Cancer Treat Rev 2014;40;685–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xu XL, Yu HQ, Hu W, et al. A novel inflammation-based prognostic score, the C-reactive protein/albumin ratio predicts the prognosis of patients with operable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. PLoS One 2015;10:e0138657. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lim SL, Lee CJ, Chan YH. Prognostic validity of 3-minute nutrition screening (3-MinNS) in predicting length of hospital stay, readmission. Cost of hospitalization and mortality: A cohort study. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 2014;23;560–566.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lim SL, Tong CY, Ang E, et al. Development and validation of 3-minute nutrition screening (3-MinNS) tool for acute hospital patients in Singapore. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 2009;18:395–403.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sun Z, Kong XJ, Jing X, et al. Nutritional risk screening 2002 as a predictor of postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. PLoS One 2015;10:e0132857. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stratton RJ, Hackston A, Longmore D, et al. Malnutrition in hospital outpatients and inpatients: Prevalence, concurrent validity and ease of use of the ‘malnutrition universal screening tool’ (‘MUST’) for adults. Br J Nutr 2004;92:799–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kalkan C, Kartal AC, Karakaya F, et al. Utility of three prognostic risk scores in predicting outcomes in elderly non-malignant patients after percutaneous gastrostomy. J Nutr Health Aging 2017;21:1344–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rubenstein LZ, Harker JO, Salva A, et al. Screening for undernutrition in geriatric practice: Developing the short-form mini-nutritional assessment (MNA-SF). J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001;56:M366–M372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Folven K, Biringer E, Abrahamsen JF. Mini nutritional assessment short-form (MNA-SF) predicts institutionalisation in an intermediate post-acute care setting. J Nutr Health Aging 2018;22:199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kizilarslanoglu MC, Kilic MK, Gokce D, et al. Is it possible using handgrip strength instead of body mass index in MNA-SF test to assess the nutritional status of geriatric patients? J Nutr Health Aging 2017;21:579–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wilson MM, Thomas DR, Rubenstein LZ, et al. Appetite assessment: Simple appetite questionnaire predicts weight loss in community-dwelling adults and nursing home residents. Am J Clin Nutr 2005;82:1074–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pilgrim AL, Baylis D, Jameson KA, et al. Measuring appetite with the Simplified Nutritional Appetite Questionnaire identifies hospitalized older people at risk of worse health outcomes. J Nutr Health Aging 2016;20:3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Acar Tek N, Karacil-Ermumcu MS. Determinants of health related quality of life in home dwelling elderly population: Appetite and nutritional status. J Nutr Health Aging 2018;22:996–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang T, Shen J. Usefulness of simplified nutritional appetite questionnaire (SNAQ) in appetite assessment in elder patients with liver cirrhosis. J Nutr Health Aging 2018;22:911–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Morley JE. Frailty and sarcopenia: The new geriatric giants. Rev Invest Clin 2016;68:59–67.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Malmstrom TK, Miller DK, Morley JE. A comparison of four frailty models. J Am Geriatr Soc 2014;62:721–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Susanto, Hubbard RE, Gardiner PA. Validity and responsiveness of the FRAIL scale in middle-aged women. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2018;19:65–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    www.australianageingagenda.com.au/2018/1/24government-launches-frailty-resource-seniors/Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dent E, Lien C, Lim WS, et al. The Asia-Pacific clinical practice guidelines for the management of frailty. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2017;18:564–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Morley JE. Developing novel therapeutic approaches to frailty. Curr Pharm Design 2009;15:3384–3395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Morley JE. Editorial: Defining undernutrition (malnutrition) in older persons. J Nutr Health Aging 2018;22:308–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Morley JE. Anorexia of aging: A true geriatric syndrome. J Nutr Health Aging 2012;16:422–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bauer J, Biolo G, Cederholm T, et al. Evidence-based recommendations for optimal dietary protein intake in older people: A position paper from the PROT-AGE study group. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2013;14:542–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Serdi and Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Geriatric MedicineSaint Louis University School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations