Camilla Fiorindi

Dr. Camilla Fiorindi

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

7Years (2020-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
25 July 2020 in Nutrients
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CFCamilla Fiorindi
Camilla Fiorindi
Cristina LuceriCristina Luceri
Cristina Luceri
GDGabriele Dragoni
Gabriele Dragoni
GPGuya Piemonte
Guya Piemonte
SSStefano Scaringi
Stefano Scaringi
FGFrancesco Giudici
Francesco Giudici
Background: A gold standard method for malnutrition diagnosis is still lacking in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). Objective: The aims of this study are to determine the prevalence of malnutrition in IBD patients according with recently published Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria, to detect the factors contributing to the onset of malnutrition, and to evaluate the most accurate predictor of malnutrition risk within the available nutritional screening tools. Methods: Fifty-three consecutive adult IBD patients [38 Crohn’s disease (CD) and 15 ulcerative colitis (UC)] had been assessed preoperatively by a multidisciplinary IBD team before undergoing elective surgery. Several malnutrition risk tools were tested, such as NRS-2002, MUST, MST, MIRT, and SaskIBD-NR. The statistical association of independent GLIM variables with baseline characteristics of patients was explored as well as the concordance with the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN 2015) and the screening tools. Results: Twenty-two IBD patients (42%) were malnourished according to GLIM criteria, of which 13 were CD (34%) and 9 UC (60%). The etiological criteria of inflammation and reduction of food intake were present in 51% and 19% of our patients, respectively. The prevalence of GLIM phenotypic criteria was 28%, 28% and 34% for BMI, Free Fat Mass Index (FFMI) and unintended weight loss (UWL), respectively. The presence of ileostomy was statistically associated with a higher prevalence of BMI (p = 0.030), FFMI (p = 0.030) and UWL (p = 0.002) values lower than the GLIM criteria cut-offs, while secondary surgery is associated with a decrease in FFMI (p = 0.017) and UWL (p = 0.041). The sensitivity of the tested nutritional screening tools, compared with the GLIM prevalence of malnutrition, was not satisfactory (between 50 and 82%). Conclusions: GLIM has a higher rate of malnutrition detection than ESPEN 2015, as malnutrition in IBD seems linked to inflammation and secondary malabsorption even without a reduction of food intake. The sensitivity of the screening tools is lower than the specificity when compared with GLIM criteria for malnutrition diagnosis.

1 March 2021 in Clinical Nutrition
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
CFCamilla Fiorindi
Camilla Fiorindi
FCFrancesca Cuffaro
Francesca Cuffaro
GPGuya Piemonte
Guya Piemonte
MCMarta Cricchio
Marta Cricchio
RARami Addasi
Rami Addasi
FGFrancesco Giudici
Francesco Giudici

30 October 2021 in Nutrients
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CFCamilla Fiorindi
Camilla Fiorindi
GDGabriele Dragoni
Gabriele Dragoni
SSStefano Scaringi
Stefano Scaringi
Fabio StaderiniFabio Staderini
Fabio Staderini
ANAnita Nannoni
Anita Nannoni
FGFrancesco Giudici
Francesco Giudici
Background: Accurate identification of malnutrition and preoperative nutritional care in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) surgery is mandatory. There is no validated nutritional screening tool for IBD patients. We developed a novel nutritional screening tool for IBD patients requiring surgery and compared it with other tools. Methods: we included 62 consecutive patients scheduled for elective surgery. The IBD Nutritional Screening tool (NS-IBD) was developed to screen patients for further comprehensive assessment. NRS-2002, MUST, MST, MIRT, SaskIBD-NR are compared with the new test. All screening tests were subsequently related to new GLIM criteria. Results: according to GLIM criteria, 25 (40%) IBD patients were malnourished (15 CD and 10 UC, 33% vs. 63%, p = 0.036). Stage 1 malnutrition was reported in ten patients, while stage 2 was detected in 15 patients. The comparison of each nutritional risk tool with GLIM criteria showed sensitivity of 0.52, 0.6, 0.6, 0.84, 0.84 and 0.92 for SASKIBD-NR, MUST, MST, NRS-2002, MIRT, and the new NS-IBD, respectively. Conclusions: in IBD, currently adopted nutritional screening tools are characterized by a low sensitivity when malnutrition diagnosis is performed with recent GLIM criteria. Our proposed tool to detect malnutrition performed the best in detecting patients that may require nutritional assessment and preoperative intervention.

1 December 2021 in Clinical Nutrition ESPEN
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
CFCamilla Fiorindi
Camilla Fiorindi
Monica DinuMonica Dinu
Monica Dinu
EGElena Gavazzi
Elena Gavazzi
SSStefano Scaringi
Stefano Scaringi
FFFerdinando Ficari
Ferdinando Ficari
FGFrancesco Giudici
Francesco Giudici


3 October 2022 in Nutrients
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CFCamilla Fiorindi
Camilla Fiorindi
EREdda Russo
Edda Russo
LBLucrezia Balocchini
Lucrezia Balocchini
Amedeo AmedeiAmedeo Amedei
Amedeo Amedei
FGFrancesco Giudici
Francesco Giudici
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) represents a chronic relapsing–remitting condition affecting the gastrointestinal system. The specific triggering IBD elements remain unknown: genetic variability, environmental factors, and alterations in the host immune system seem to be involved. An unbalanced diet and subsequent gut dysbiosis are risk factors, too. This review focuses on the description of the impact of pro- and anti-inflammatory food components on IBD, the role of different selected regimes (such as Crohn’s Disease Exclusion Diet, Immunoglobulin Exclusion Diet, Specific Carbohydrate Diet, LOFFLEX Diet, Low FODMAPs Diet, Mediterranean Diet) in the IBD management, and their effects on the gut microbiota (GM) composition and balance. The purpose is to investigate the potential positive action on IBD inflammation, which is associated with the exclusion or addition of certain foods or nutrients, to more consciously customize the nutritional intervention, taking also into account GM fluctuations during both disease flare-up and remission.