Propiedades nutricionales, microbiológicas y costes de producción de las dietas de textura modificada en las residencias de ancianos. El estudio ABADÍA.

Introduction: although nutritional differences between different types of texture-modified diet (TMD) have been evaluated, the resources and costs associated with their preparation have been less studied. Objective: to describe the nutritional, microbiological properties and costs of: 1) in-home produced pureed food (hTMD); 2) concentrated nutrient-dense commercial food products, hand-blended (cTMD); 3) food prepared using the MixxPro® automatic food mixer (cTMD-Mix). Methods: an observational, prospective study carried out in three geriatric nursing-homes. Patients ≥ 65 years, receiving TMD, with a stable clinical condition, estimated survival/expected internment > 1 month, and sufficient cognitive capacity were included. The following data were recorded: 1) patient socio-demographic and clinical variables; 2) TMD compliance and symptoms related to dysphagia during the meal; 3) patient appetite; and 4) kitchen information and resources used to prepare a TMD. Results: sixty-two residents were included (65.0 % women, 88.3 years (SD: 9.3); 43.5 % malnourished, 79.0 % with good appetite). The proportion of food eaten/median kcal served/portion/mean kcal consumed were: hTMD: 95.5 % (SD: 10.7)/92.4 kcal (IQR: 75.6-128.1)/88.2 kcal (IQR: 72.2-122.3); cTMD: 89.2 % (SD: 15.9)/323.4 kcal (IQR: 284.2-454.1)/288.5 kcal (IQR: 253.5-325.1); and cTMD-Mix: 80.3 % (SD: 21.4)/358.0 kcal (IQR: 344.0-372.1)/287.5 kcal (IQR: 276.5-298.8). No microorganisms were detected. The average time spent in preparing each portion and its costs were: hTMD: 11.2 min (SD: 3.89)/€2.33 (SD: 0.63); cTMD: 1.7 min (SD: 0.28)/€2.01 (SD: 0.39); and cTMD-Mix: 1.6 min (SD: 0.00)/€2.00 (SD: 0.33). Conclusions: in patients with dysphagia and/or chewing difficulties, concentrated nutrient-dense food products, particularly those produced using the MixxPro® automatic food mixer, ensure a high caloric intake and allow quick and safe food preparation

Recomendaciones sobre el uso de metrotexato parenteral en reumatología

Sin financiaciónNo data JCR 20180.363 SJR (2018) Q3, 38/66 RheumatologyNo data IDR 2018UE

Recommendations for the use of parenteral methotrexate in rheumatology

Desarrollar recomendaciones sobre el uso de metrotexato (MTX) parenteral en pacientes con enfermedades reumáticas, fundamentalmente en la artritis reumatoide, basadas en la mejor evidencia y experiencia. Métodos Se seleccionó un grupo de 21 expertos reumatólogos en el manejo de MTX. El coordinador generó 13 preguntas sobre el uso de MTX parenteral (perfiles de indicación, eficacia, seguridad, costo-eficacia y biodisponibilidad) para ser contestadas mediante una revisión sistemática de la literatura. Con base en las preguntas se definieron los criterios de inclusión y exclusión, y las estrategias de búsqueda (en Medline, EMBASE y la Cochrane Library). Tres revisores seleccionaron los artículos resultantes de la búsqueda. Se generaron tablas de evidencia. Paralelamente se evaluaron abstracts de congresos de la European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) y del American College of Rheumatology (ACR). Con toda esta evidencia el coordinador generó 13 recomendaciones preliminares que se evaluaron, discutieron y votaron en una reunión del grupo nominal con los expertos. Para cada recomendación se estableció el nivel de evidencia y grado de recomendación, y el grado de acuerdo mediante un Delphi. Se definió acuerdo si al menos el 80% de los participantes contestaron sí a la recomendación (sí o no). Resultados La mayoría de la evidencia proviene de la artritis reumatoide. De las 13 recomendaciones preliminares se aceptaron 11 recomendaciones sobre el uso de MTX parenteral en reumatología. Dos no se llegaron a votar y se decidió no incluirlas, pero se comentan en el texto final. Conclusiones Este documento pretende resolver algunos interrogantes clínicos habituales y facilitar la toma de decisiones con el uso de MTX parenteral.To develop recommendations for the use of parenteral methotrexate (MTX) in rheumatic diseases, mainly rheumatoid arthritis, based on best evidence and experience. Methods A group of 21 experts on parenteral MTX use was selected. The coordinator formulated 13 questions about parenteral MTX (indications, efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness). A systematic review was conducted to answer the questions. Using this information, inclusion and exclusion criteria were established, as were the search strategies (involving Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library). Three different reviewers selected the articles. Evidence tables were created. Abstracts from the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) were evaluated. Based on this evidence, the coordinator proposed preliminary recommendations that the experts discussed and voted in a nominal group meeting. The level of evidence and grade of recommendation were established using the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and the level of agreement with the Delphi technique (2 rounds). Agreement was established if at least 80% of the experts voted yes (yes/no). Results Most of the evidence involved rheumatoid arthritis. A total of 13 preliminary recommendations on the use of parenteral MTX were proposed; 11 of them were accepted. Two of the 13 were not voted and are commented on in the main text. Conclusions The manuscript aims to solve frequent questions and help in decision-making strategies when treating patients with parenteral MTX.Sin financiaciónNo data JCR 20180.363 SJR (2018) Q3, 38/66 RheumatologyNo data IDR 2018UE

Successful Optimization of Adalimumab Therapy in Refractory Uveitis Due to Behçet's Disease.

To assess efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab (ADA) therapy optimization in a large series of patients with uveitis due to Behçet disease (BD) who achieved remission after the use of this biologic agent. Open-label multicenter study of ADA-treated patients with BD uveitis refractory to conventional immunosuppressants. Sixty-five of 74 patients with uveitis due to BD, who achieved remission after a median ADA duration of 6 (range, 3-12) months. ADA was optimized in 23 (35.4%) of them. This biologic agent was maintained at a dose of 40 mg/subcutaneously/2 weeks in the remaining 42 patients. After remission, based on a shared decision between the patient and the treating physician, ADA was optimized. When agreement between patient and physician was reached, optimization was performed by prolonging the ADA dosing interval progressively. Comparison between optimized and nonoptimized patients was performed. Efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness in optimized and nonoptimized groups. To determine efficacy, intraocular inflammation (anterior chamber cells, vitritis, and retinal vasculitis), macular thickness, visual acuity, and the sparing effect of glucocorticoids were assessed. No demographic or ocular differences were found at the time of ADA onset between the optimized and the nonoptimized groups. Most ocular outcomes were similar after a mean ± standard deviation follow-up of 34.7±13.3 and 26±21.3 months in the optimized and nonoptimized groups, respectively. However, relevant adverse effects were only seen in the nonoptimized group (lymphoma, pneumonia, severe local reaction at the injection site, and bacteremia by Escherichia coli, 1 each). Moreover, the mean ADA treatment costs were lower in the optimized group than in the nonoptimized group (6101.25 euros/patient/year vs. 12 339.48; P ADA optimization in BD uveitis refractory to conventional therapy is effective, safe, and cost-effective

Comparative Study of Infliximab Versus Adalimumab in Refractory Uveitis due to Behçet's Disease: National Multicenter Study of 177 Cases.

To compare the efficacy of infliximab (IFX) versus adalimumab (ADA) as a first-line biologic drug over 1 year of treatment in a large series of patients with refractory uveitis due to Behçet's disease (BD). We conducted an open-label multicenter study of IFX versus ADA for BD-related uveitis refractory to conventional nonbiologic treatment. IFX or ADA was chosen as the first-line biologic agent based on physician and patient agreement. Patients received 3-5 mg/kg intravenous IFX at 0, 2, and 6 weeks and every 4-8 weeks thereafter, or 40 mg subcutaneous ADA every other week without a loading dose. Ocular parameters were compared between the 2 groups. The study included 177 patients (316 affected eyes), of whom 103 received IFX and 74 received ADA. There were no significant baseline differences between treatment groups in main demographic features, previous therapy, or ocular sign severity. After 1 year of therapy, we observed an improvement in all ocular parameters in both groups. However, patients receiving ADA had significantly better outcomes in some parameters, including improvement in anterior chamber inflammation (92.31% versus 78.18% for IFX; P = 0.06), improvement in vitritis (93.33% versus 78.95% for IFX; P = 0.04), and best-corrected visual acuity (mean ± SD 0.81 ± 0.26 versus 0.67 ± 0.34 for IFX; P = 0.001). A nonsignificant difference was seen for macular thickness (mean ± SD 250.62 ± 36.85 for ADA versus 264.89 ± 59.74 for IFX; P = 0.15), and improvement in retinal vasculitis was similar between the 2 groups (95% for ADA versus 97% for IFX; P = 0.28). The drug retention rate was higher in the ADA group (95.24% versus 84.95% for IFX; P = 0.042). Although both IFX and ADA are efficacious in refractory BD-related uveitis, ADA appears to be associated with better outcomes than IFX after 1 year of follow-up