Background: The impact of home parenteral nutrition (HPN) on the quality of life (QoL) of cancer patients has been previously investigated. However, scarce data are available regarding near-death QoL in patients with cancer receiving HPN. This study aims to investigate the changes of QoL in these patients in the last two months before death. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a previous, prospective, longitudinal, observational study. QoL was assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Results: Eighty-four adult cancer patients who died on HPN and had filled out the questionnaire between 31 and 60 days (M2) and within 30 days prior (M1) to death were included in this analysis. The questionnaires filled out at M2 and M1 were compared with those filled out by the same patients at HPN start (T0). At M2, there was a significant improvement in both the global QoL and symptoms scales (p < 0.001 and p < 0.033, respectively), while at M1, a significant improvement in the global QoL scale persisted (p < 0.035) compared with T0. Conclusions: Our study first reports that HPN, if started early and according to European guidelines, is associated with an improvement in the QoL of patients with cancer even in the last two months before death.

Different alcoholic beverages can have different effects on blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and neurotoxicity, even when equalized for alcohol content by volume. Anecdotal evidence suggested that natural wine is metabolized differently from conventional wines. This triple-blind study compared the BAC of 55 healthy male subjects after consuming the equivalent of 2 units of alcohol of a natural or conventional wine over 3 min in two separate sessions, one week apart. BAC was measured using a professional breathalyzer every 20 min after consumption for 2 h. The BAC curves in response to the two wines diverged significantly at twenty minutes (interval T20) and forty minutes (interval T40), and also at their maximum concentrations (peaks), with the natural wine inducing a lower BAC than the conventional wine [T20 = 0.40 versus 0.46 (p < 0.0002); T40 = 0.49 versus 0.53 (p < 0.0015); peak = 0.52 versus 0.56 (p < 0.0002)]. These differences are likely related to the development of different amino acids and antioxidants in the two wines during their production. This may in turn affect the kinetics of alcohol absorption and metabolism. Other contributing factors could include pesticide residues, differences in dry extract content, and the use of indigenous or selected yeasts. The study shows that with the same quantity and conditions of intake, natural wine has lower pharmacokinetic and metabolic effects than conventional wine, which can be assumed due to the different agronomic and oenological practices with which they are produced. It can therefore be hypothesized that the consumption of natural wine may have a different impact on human health from that of conventional wine.