Effect of Degree of Caloric Imbalance on ALS Disease Progression
Rachel Thompson1, Muhannad Seyam2, Joan Skelly4, Margo Nolan5, Jiayi Luo1, Syed Jafri1, Waqar Waheed3, Edward Kasarskis6, Rup Tandan7
1Robert Larner College of Medicine, 2UVM, University of Vermont Medical Center, 3University of Vermont Medical Center, 4University of Vermont, 5Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, 6UK Healthcare, 7University of Vermont (UVM)/UVM Medical Center
Objective:

To assess the effect of caloric balance on disease-severity and progression measured by change in the ALS Functional Rating Score -revised (ALSFRSR) and forced vital capacity (FVC).

Background:

Caloric intake suffers in ALS patients due to poor nutrition while caloric expense is increased by hypermetabolism and inefficient use of calories during physical activity. Caloric imbalance, weakness, and fatality eventually result (1). 

Design/Methods:

Data on 103 patients from our center from are included to date. The estimated total daily caloric requirement (TDCR) was calculated using an ALS-specific version of the Harris-Benedict equation (HBE) (2) where TDCR = [(Basal Metabolic Rate from HBE) + (55.96 x ALSFRSR-6) – 168 kcal/day] (3). Caloric Balance (CB) was calculated as CB = [(daily caloric intake / TDCR) x 100]. Patients were categorized as being below, within, or above CB thresholds of 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%. Patients were further stratified based on ALSFRSR scores, FVC, and rate of disease progression at baseline. 

Results:

Patients with TDCR >10% (p = 0.04) and >15% (p = 0.02) compared to intake had slower rates of disease progression (-0.37 and –0.47, respectively) compared to patients below or within 5% CB. Detailed results on a larger sample size will be presented later. 

Conclusions:

Patients with positive CB >10% and >15% have slower rates of decline of ALSFRS-R scores compared to patients at or below the 5% threshold. Results have implications for early nutritional care in ALS. 

10.1212/WNL.0000000000212393
Disclaimer: Abstracts were not reviewed by Neurology® and do not reflect the views of Neurology® editors or staff.