Caution, "normal" BMI: health risks associated with potentially masked individual underweight - EPMA position paper 2021

An increasing interest in a healthy lifestyle raises questions about optimal body weight. Evidently, it should be clearly discriminated between the standardised "normal" body weight and individually optimal weight. To this end, the basic principle of personalised medicine "one size does not fit all" has to be applied. Contextually, "normal" but e.g. borderline body mass index might be optimal for one person but apparently suboptimal for another one strongly depending on the individual genetic predisposition, geographic origin, cultural and nutritional habits and relevant lifestyle parameters - all included into comprehensive individual patient profile. Even if only slightly deviant, both overweight and underweight are acknowledged risk factors for a shifted metabolism which, if being not optimised, may strongly contribute to the development and progression of severe pathologies. Development of innovative screening programmes is essential to promote population health by application of health risks assessment, individualised patient profiling and multi-parametric analysis, further used for cost-effective targeted prevention and treatments tailored to the person. The following healthcare areas are considered to be potentially strongly benefiting from the above proposed measures: suboptimal health conditions, sports medicine, stress overload and associated complications, planned pregnancies, periodontal health and dentistry, sleep medicine, eye health and disorders, inflammatory disorders, healing and pain management, metabolic disorders, cardiovascular disease, cancers, psychiatric and neurologic disorders, stroke of known and unknown aetiology, improved individual and population outcomes under pandemic conditions such as COVID-19. In a long-term way, a significantly improved healthcare economy is one of benefits of the proposed paradigm shift from reactive to Predictive, Preventive and Personalised Medicine (PPPM/3PM). A tight collaboration between all stakeholders including scientific community, healthcare givers, patient organisations, policy-makers and educators is essential for the smooth implementation of 3PM concepts in daily practice

Peanut‐induced anaphylaxis in children and adolescents: Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry

Background Peanut allergy has a rising prevalence in high-income countries, affecting 0.5%-1.4% of children. This study aimed to better understand peanut anaphylaxis in comparison to anaphylaxis to other food triggers in European children and adolescents. Methods Data was sourced from the European Anaphylaxis Registry via an online questionnaire, after in-depth review of food-induced anaphylaxis cases in a tertiary paediatric allergy centre. Results 3514 cases of food anaphylaxis were reported between July 2007 - March 2018, 56% in patients younger than 18 years. Peanut anaphylaxis was recorded in 459 children and adolescents (85% of all peanut anaphylaxis cases). Previous reactions (42% vs. 38%; p = .001), asthma comorbidity (47% vs. 35%; p < .001), relevant cofactors (29% vs. 22%; p = .004) and biphasic reactions (10% vs. 4%; p = .001) were more commonly reported in peanut anaphylaxis. Most cases were labelled as severe anaphylaxis (Ring&Messmer grade III 65% vs. 56% and grade IV 1.1% vs. 0.9%; p = .001). Self-administration of intramuscular adrenaline was low (17% vs. 15%), professional adrenaline administration was higher in non-peanut food anaphylaxis (34% vs. 26%; p = .003). Hospitalization was higher for peanut anaphylaxis (67% vs. 54%; p = .004). Conclusions The European Anaphylaxis Registry data confirmed peanut as one of the major causes of severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reactions in European children, with some characteristic features e.g., presence of asthma comorbidity and increased rate of biphasic reactions. Usage of intramuscular adrenaline as first-line treatment is low and needs to be improved. The Registry, designed as the largest database on anaphylaxis, allows continuous assessment of this condition

Phytochemicals and Gastrointestinal Cancer: Cellular Mechanisms and Effects to Change Cancer Progression

Gastrointestinal (GI) cancer is a prevailing global health disease with a high incidence rate which varies by region. It is a huge economic burden on health care providers. GI cancer affects different organs in the body such as the gastric organs, colon, esophagus, intestine, and pancreas. Internal and external factors like smoking, obesity, urbanization, genetic mutations, and prevalence of Helicobacter pylori and Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C viral infections could increase the risk of GI cancer. Phytochemicals are non-nutritive bioactive secondary compounds abundantly found in fruits, grains, and vegetables. Consumption of phytochemicals may protect against chronic diseases like cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative disease, and cancer. Multiple studies have assessed the chemoprotective effect of selected phytochemicals in GI cancer, offering support to their potential towards reducing the pathogenesis of the disease. The aim of this review was to summarize the current knowledge addressing the anti-cancerous effects of selected dietary phytochemicals on GI cancer and their molecular activities on selected mechanisms, i.e., nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NF-&kappa;B), detoxification enzymes, adenosine monophosphate activated protein kinase (AMPK), wingless-related integration site/&beta;-catenin (wingless-related integration site (Wnt) &beta;-catenin, cell apoptosis, phosphoinositide 3-kinases (PI3K)/ protein kinase B AKT/ mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK). In this review phytochemicals were classified into four main categories: (i) carotenoids, including lutein, lycopene, and &beta;-carotene; (ii) proanthocyanidins, including quercetin and ellagic acid; (iii) organosulfur compounds, including allicin, allyl propyl disulphide, asparagusic acid, and sulforaphane; and (iv) other phytochemicals including pectin, curcumins, p-coumaric acid and ferulic acid. Overall, phytochemicals improve cancer prognosis through the downregulation of &beta;-catenin phosphorylation, therefore enhancing apoptosis, and upregulation of the AMPK pathway, which supports cellular homeostasis. Nevertheless, more studies are needed to provide a better understanding of the mechanism of cancer treatment using phytochemicals and possible side effects associated with this approach