From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fundamental Contradiction[edit]

The preamble to this article notes that Cachexia is formally defined as "loss of body mass that cannot be reversed nutritionally." The 'Disease Settings' section observes "In most cases cachexia can be reversed with just eating" which flatly contradicts the definition given, and is factually incorrect. Please correct! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Difference of opinion[edit]

We have a serious problem here: 1. cachexia IS NOT a disease, it is a SYMPTOM 2. you do not have to be anorectic to be cachectic To fix such a huge mistake I would have to wirte the article from the very begining and unfortunatelly I have not very time to spare. I just wonder who wrote it????!!!! Myga 15:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Additions to this page[edit]

Cachexia is a "wasting" syndrome. Advanced cancer and HIV can lead to cachexia. TNFalpha, an inflammatory cytokine, is upregulated in cancer patients suffering from cachexia. Patients may be treated with Megestrol, an appetite stiumulant. Treatment is largely supportive, not curative.

There appears to be a contradiction on this page - 'resulting in muscle atrophy. Resulting in large muscle gains.' Surely that's opposite? Prettyinpink88 (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) guidelines on Contrast Media (version 7.0): a clinical feature or result of Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis (NSF) is Cachexia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Cachexia versus wasting[edit]

Is there, in fact, any difference between cachexia and wasting, other than one is a technical term and the other is widely understood? Should the cachexia and wasting articles be merged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to ask the same question. Is there anything in the Wasting article that would not be relevant here?--Egmonster (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Registered Dietitian - Prevents Cachexia, Saves Lives —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wasting could be due to straightforward malnutrition (e.g., due to long-term poverty) or any cause; cachexia, as I understand it, is a specific form of wasting with an immunological pathogenesis. Unlike some other forms of wasting, cachexia cannot be relieved solely by eating a healthy diet.
However, Wasting syndrome appears to be the same as Cachexia, so that should probably be merged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


I don't want to mess up your most excellent webpage, but I have a teenytiny request.

Could someone put spaces between the syllables in the phonetic pronunciation? In my mind, I applied old-school "put the accent mark at the END of the accented syllable" and couldn't figure out the pronunciation.

I finally figured out we're supposed to put the accent mark at the BEGINNING of the accented syllable.

Even though it is done correctly in this article, help out us children of the 60s and put spaces between the syllables so we notice immediately which the accented syllable is! Thanks, and sorry to be a nuisance. Theresavalek (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)