The sarcopenia and physical frailty in older people: multi-component treatment strategies (SPRINTT) project: description and feasibility of a nutrition intervention in community-dwelling older Europeans.

To access publisher's full text version of this article, please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field or click on the hyperlink at the top of the page marked DownloadBackground: The "Sarcopenia and Physical Frailty in Older People: Multicomponent Treatment Strategies" (SPRINTT) project sponsored a multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) with the objective to determine the effect of physical activity and nutrition intervention for prevention of mobility disability in community-dwelling frail older Europeans. We describe here the design and feasibility of the SPRINTT nutrition intervention, including techniques used by nutrition interventionists to identify those at risk of malnutrition and to carry out the nutrition intervention. Methods: SPRINTT RCT recruited older adults (≥ 70 years) from 11 European countries. Eligible participants (n = 1517) had functional limitations measured with Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB score 3-9) and low muscle mass as determined by DXA scans, but were able to walk 400 m without assistance within 15 min. Participants were followed up for up to 3 years. The nutrition intervention was carried out mainly by individual nutrition counseling. Nutrition goals included achieving a daily protein intake of 1.0-1.2 g/kg body weight, energy intake of 25-30 kcal/kg of body weight/day, and serum vitamin D concentration ≥ 75 mmol/L. Survey on the method strategies and feasibility of the nutrition intervention was sent to all nutrition interventionists of the 16 SPRINTT study sites. Results: Nutrition interventionists from all study sites responded to the survey. All responders found that the SPRINTT nutrition intervention was feasible for the target population, and it was well received by the majority. The identification of participants at nutritional risk was accomplished by combining information from interviews, questionnaires, clinical and laboratory data. Although the nutrition intervention was mainly carried out using individual nutritional counselling, other assisting methods were used as appropriate. Conclusion: The SPRINTT nutrition intervention was feasible and able to adapt flexibly to varying needs of this heterogeneous population. The procedures adopted to identify older adults at risk of malnutrition and to design the appropriate intervention may serve as a model to deliver nutrition intervention for community-dwelling older people with mobility limitations. Keywords: Energy intake; Nutrition counselling; Nutrition intervention; Protein intake; SPRINTT.University of Helsinki including Helsinki University Central Hospital Innovative Medicine Initiative (IMI) Juho Vainio foundatio

The possibilities of dentition reconstruction with the use of bicortical implants : review of literature

Współcześnie implantologia stanowi podstawową metodę zaopatrzenia protetycznego pacjentów z brakami zębowymi, umożliwiając zarówno rehabilitację, jak i rekonstrukcję protetyczną. Implanty cechują się przede wszystkim biozgodnością oraz rozmaitym zastosowaniem klinicznym (wykorzystanie zarówno jako filarów pod prace stałe, jak i do wzmocnienia retencji protez ruchomych). Obok powszechnie stosowanych implantów śródkostnych bazowanych na systemie Brånemarka swoje miejsce znalazły również implanty bikortykalne, oparte o dwie blaszki istoty zbitej, co warunkuje odmienności biomechaniczne oraz kliniczne pracy z tego typu wszczepami. Mogą być one stosowane do odbudowy braków zębowych o rozmaitej etiologii (choroba próchnicowa, periodontopatie, urazy) z bardzo dobrą skutecznością i stanowią alternatywę dla tradycyjnych systemów implantologicznych.Nowadays, implantology is the basic metod of prosthetic supply of patients with dental deficiencies. It enables both prosthodontic rehabilitation and reconstruction. Implants are primarly biocompatible and of vast clinical application (both as pillars for fixed prosthesis and as an additional retention for mobile ones). Besides the commonly used intraosseus implants based on Brånemark’s system, bicortical implants were brought to stomatology. Since they rest on both layers of lamina dura, their biomechanics as well as clinical approach differs. They can be used to reconstuct teeth loss of a variety of aetiology (caries, periodontitis, traumas) with very high efficacy and constitute an alternatice to traditional implant systems

Cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE--5-a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survival is a key measure of the effectiveness of health-care systems. EUROCARE-the largest cooperative study of population-based cancer survival in Europe-has shown persistent differences between countries for cancer survival, although in general, cancer survival is improving. Major changes in cancer diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation occurred in the early 2000s. EUROCARE-5 assesses their effect on cancer survival in 29 European countries. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, we analysed data from 107 cancer registries for more than 10 million patients with cancer diagnosed up to 2007 and followed up to 2008. Uniform quality control procedures were applied to all datasets. For patients diagnosed 2000-07, we calculated 5-year relative survival for 46 cancers weighted by age and country. We also calculated country-specific and age-specific survival for ten common cancers, together with survival differences between time periods (for 1999-2001, 2002-04, and 2005-07). FINDINGS: 5-year relative survival generally increased steadily over time for all European regions. The largest increases from 1999-2001 to 2005-07 were for prostate cancer (73.4% [95% CI 72.9-73.9] vs 81.7% [81.3-82.1]), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (53.8% [53.3-54.4] vs 60.4% [60.0-60.9]), and rectal cancer (52.1% [51.6-52.6] vs 57.6% [57.1-58.1]). Survival in eastern Europe was generally low and below the European mean, particularly for cancers with good or intermediate prognosis. Survival was highest for northern, central, and southern Europe. Survival in the UK and Ireland was intermediate for rectal cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, skin melanoma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but low for kidney, stomach, ovarian, colon, and lung cancers. Survival for lung cancer in the UK and Ireland was much lower than for other regions for all periods, although results for lung cancer in some regions (central and eastern Europe) might be affected by overestimation. Survival usually decreased with age, although to different degrees depending on region and cancer type. INTERPRETATION: The major advances in cancer management that occurred up to 2007 seem to have resulted in improved survival in Europe. Likely explanations of differences in survival between countries include: differences in stage at diagnosis and accessibility to good care, different diagnostic intensity and screening approaches, and differences in cancer biology. Variations in socioeconomic, lifestyle, and general health between populations might also have a role. Further studies are needed to fully interpret these findings and how to remedy disparities. FUNDING: Italian Ministry of Health, European Commission, Compagnia di San Paolo Foundation, Cariplo Foundation

Cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE--5-a population-based study

Cancer survival is a key measure of the effectiveness of health-care systems. EUROCARE-the largest cooperative study of population-based cancer survival in Europe-has shown persistent differences between countries for cancer survival, although in general, cancer survival is improving. Major changes in cancer diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation occurred in the early 2000s. EUROCARE-5 assesses their effect on cancer survival in 29 European countries