Background: Cachexia has significant impact on the patients' quality of life and prognosis. It is frequently observed in patients with cancer, especially in advanced stages, but prevalence data for the overall population are lacking. Good quality estimates of cancer cachexia in general and for each of the major cancer types would be highly relevant for potential treatment development efforts in this field. Both the USA and European Union (EU) have implemented special clinical development rules for such rare disorders what are called ‘orphan diseases’. The cut‐off level for a disease to be considered an orphan disease in the USA is 200 000 people (0.06% of the population) and EU is 5 per 10 000 people (0.05% of the population).Methods: For this systematic review, we searched at PubMed (from inception to 31 January 2018) to identify clinical studies that assessed the prevalence of cachexia in cancer patients at risk. Studies reporting the prevalence of either cancer cachexia or wasting disease in the top‐10 cancer types and 4 other selected cancer types known to be particularly commonly complicated by cachexia were included in this analysis (i.e. prostate cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, melanoma, endometrial cancer, thyroid cancer, urinary bladder cancer, non‐hodgkin lymphoma, lung cancer, kidney and renal pelvis cancer, head and neck cancer, gastric cancer, liver cancer, and pancreatic cancer). We calculated the current burden of cancer cachexia, disease by disease, in the USA and in the EU and compared them to the current guidelines for the definition of orphan disease status.Results: We estimate that in 2014 in the USA, a total of 527 100 patients (16.5 subjects per 10 000 people of the total population), and in 2013 in the EU, a total of 800 300 patients (15.8 subjects per 10 000 people of the total population) suffered from cancer cachexia (of any kind). In the 14 separately analysed cancer types, the prevalence of cancer cachexia in the USA ranged between 11 300 (0.4/10 000, gastric cancer) and 92 000 patients (2.9/10 000, lung cancer) and in the EU between 14 300 (0.3/10 000, melanoma of the skin) and 150 100 (3.0/10 000, colorectal cancer).Conclusions: The absolute number of patients affected by cancer cachexia in each cancer group is lower than the defined thresholds for orphan diseases in the USA and EU. Cancer cachexia in each subgroup separately should be considered an orphan disease.

Sarcopenia is primarily characterized by skeletal muscle disturbances such as loss of muscle mass, quality, strength, and physical performance. It is commonly seen in elderly patients with chronic diseases. The prevalence of sarcopenia in chronic heart failure (HF) patients amounts to up to 20% and may progress into cardiac cachexia. Muscle wasting is a strong predictor of frailty and reduced survival in HF patients. Despite many different techniques and clinical tests, there is still no broadly available gold standard for the diagnosis of sarcopenia. Resistance exercise and nutritional supplementation represent the currently most used strategies against wasting disorders. Ongoing research is investigating skeletal muscle mitochondrial dysfunction as a new possible target for pharmacological compounds. Novel agents such as synthetic ghrelin and selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs) seem promising in counteracting muscle abnormalities but their effectiveness in HF patients has not been assessed yet. In the last decades, many advances have been accomplished but sarcopenia remains an underdiagnosed pathology and more efforts are needed to find an efficacious therapeutic plan. The purpose of this review is to illustrate the current knowledge in terms of pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of sarcopenia in order to provide a better understanding of wasting disorders occurring in chronic heart failure.

Patients with COVID‐19 disease are prone to develop significant weight loss and clinical cachexia. Three reports with altogether 589 patients that reported on weight loss and cachexia in COVID‐19 were identified. Disease severity of patients and the timing of the assessment during the disease course in these patients were variable—65 patients (11%) were intensive care treated at the time of assessment, and 183 (31%) were cared for in sub‐intensive or intermediate care structures. The frequency of weight loss ≥5% (that defines cachexia) was 37% (range 29–52%). Correlates of weight loss occurrence were reported to be raised C‐reactive protein levels, impaired renal function status, and longer duration of COVID‐19 disease. Underweight status by WHO criteria (BMI < 18.5 kg/m²) was only observed in 4% of patients analysing data from seven studies with 6661 patients. Cachexia assessment in COVID‐19 needs assessment of weight loss. COVID‐19 associated cachexia is understood to affect muscle and fat tissue as is also seen in many other chronic illness‐associated forms of cachexia. There are many factors that can contribute to body wasting in COVID‐19, and they include loss of appetite and taste, fever and inflammation, immobilization, as well as general malnutrition, catabolic–anabolic imbalance, endocrine dysfunction, and organ‐specific complications of COVID‐19 disease such as cardiac and renal dysfunction. Treatment of COVID‐19 patients should include a focus on nutritional support and rehabilitative exercise whenever possible. Specific anti‐cachectic therapies for COVID‐19 do not exist, but constitute a high medical need to prevent long‐term disability due to acute COVID‐19 disease.

Aims: How often a medical article is cited is important for many people because it is used to calculate different variables such as the h-index and the journal impact factor. The aim of this analysis was to assess how the citation count varies between Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Google Scholar in the current literature. Methods: We included the top 50 cited articles of four journals ESC Heart Failure; Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle; European Journal of Preventive Cardiology; and European Journal of Heart Failure in our analysis that were published between 1 January 2016 and 10 October 2019. We recorded the number of citations of these articles according to WoS, Scopus, and Google Scholar on 10 October 2019. Results: The top 50 articles in ESC Heart Failure were on average cited 12 (WoS), 13 (Scopus), and 17 times (Google Scholar); in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle 37 (WoS), 43 (Scopus), and 60 times (Google Scholar); in European Journal of Preventive Cardiology 41 (WoS), 56 (Scopus), and 67 times (Google Scholar); and in European Journal of Heart Failure 76 (WoS), 108 (Scopus), and 230 times (Google Scholar). On average, the top 50 articles in all four journals were cited 41 (WoS), 52 (Scopus, 26% higher citations count than WoS, range 8–42% in the different journals), and 93 times (Google Scholar, 116% higher citation count than WoS, range 42–203%). Conclusion: Scopus and Google Scholar on average have a higher citation count than WoS, whereas the difference is much larger between Google Scholar and WoS.

Background: Hand grip strength (HGS) is a widely used functional test for the assessment of strength and functional status in patients with cancer, in particular with cancer cachexia. The aim was to prospectively evaluate the prognostic value of HGS in patients with mostly advanced cancer with and without cachexia and to establish reference values for a European‐based population.Methods: In this prospective study, 333 patients with cancer (85% stage III/IV) and 65 healthy controls of similar age and sex were enrolled. None of the study participants had significant cardiovascular disease or active infection at baseline. Repetitive HGS assessment was performed using a hand dynamometer to measure the maximal HGS (kilograms). Presence of cancer cachexia was defined when patients had ≥5% weight loss within 6 months or when body mass index was <20.0 kg/m² with ≥2% weight loss (Fearon's criteria). Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed to assess the relationship of maximal HGS to all‐cause mortality and to determine cut‐offs for HGS with the best predictive power. We also assessed associations with additional relevant clinical and functional outcome measures at baseline, including anthropometric measures, physical function (Karnofsky Performance Status and Eastern Cooperative of Oncology Group), physical activity (4‐m gait speed test and 6‐min walk test), patient‐reported outcomes (EQ‐5D‐5L and Visual Analogue Scale appetite/pain) and nutrition status (Mini Nutritional Assessment).Results: The mean age was 60 ± 14 years; 163 (51%) were female, and 148 (44%) had cachexia at baseline. Patients with cancer showed 18% lower HGS than healthy controls (31.2 ± 11.9 vs. 37.9 ± 11.6 kg, P < 0.001). Patients with cancer cachexia had 16% lower HGS than those without cachexia (28.3 ± 10.1 vs. 33.6 ± 12.3 kg, P < 0.001). Patients with cancer were followed for a mean of 17 months (range 6–50), and 182 (55%) patients died during follow‐up (2‐year mortality rate 53%) (95% confidence interval 48–59%). Reduced maximal HGS was associated with increased mortality (per −5 kg; hazard ratio [HR] 1.19; 1.10–1.28; P < 0.0001; independently of age, sex, cancer stage, cancer entity and presence of cachexia). HGS was also a predictor of mortality in patients with cachexia (per −5 kg; HR 1.20; 1.08–1.33; P = 0.001) and without cachexia (per −5 kg; HR 1.18; 1.04–1.34; P = 0.010). The cut‐off for maximal HGS with the best predictive power for poor survival was <25.1 kg for females (sensitivity 54%, specificity 63%) and <40.2 kg for males (sensitivity 69%, specificity 68%).Conclusions: Reduced maximal HGS was associated with higher all‐cause mortality, reduced overall functional status and decreased physical performance in patients with mostly advanced cancer. Similar results were found for patients with and without cancer cachexia.