Background: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a neurodegenerative disease where malnutrition significantly worsens clinical outcomes. We performed a multidimensional analysis to identify clinical, social, and healthcare factors associated with nutritional vulnerability in a real-world setting. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 97 adults with ALS recruited through a national association (APELA) and a hospital-based outpatient consultation (ANOC). Nutritional status was assessed using the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA®), Body Mass Index (BMI), and Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria. Associations with total MNA® scores were evaluated using a prespecified multivariable linear model with HC3 robust standard errors and bootstrap validation to assess inferential stability. Results: Malnutrition prevalence was high, with 42.3% of participants classified as moderately malnourished and 43.3% as severely malnourished under GLIM criteria. Mean MNA® score was 19.69 (SD 4.53). In the adjusted model, ANOC recruitment was associated, after adjustment, with a 4.477-point lower MNA® score compared with APELA (HC3 95% CI −7.071 to −1.884; p<0.001). Other sociodemographic and clinical factors yielded imprecise estimates. Although explanatory power was modest (Adjusted R2=0.067; optimism-corrected R2=−0.005), the recruitment setting remained a robust correlate across sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Recruitment setting emerged as the most consistent adjusted correlate of MNA® scores, likely reflecting differences in clinical case mix and referral pathways in the Portuguese healthcare context. These findings highlight nutritional vulnerability in ALS as a multifaceted construct that should be interpreted in relation to both clinical and healthcare-contextual factors. This study supports considering systemic factors and the need for longitudinal research that incorporates comprehensive functional and social metrics to optimize multidisciplinary nutritional interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sousa-Catita et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: