A new device for dosing additives in the food industry using quality function deployment

This work presents an application of the quality function deployment method to the development of a new automatic device for supplying food additives for preserved foods, specifically in the form of tablets. The system operates at high speed with no increase in the proportion of improperly dosed containers. In short, this innovative system permits the dosing of additives in solid form with greater productivity than is possible with manual dosing and without the problems of incorporating additives in liquid form. This automatic dry-dosing method provides safer and better quality end-products than present dosing methods. Practical Applications The development of this new device allows a significant increase in efficiency and productivity in the automatic dosing of food additives. It gives a competitive advantage in an industry where trade margins are becoming narrower. Moreover, it also leads to potential strategies for the application of the quality function deployment method in the food processing industry. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc

Online sequential extreme learning machine in river water quality (turbidity) prediction: a comparative study on different data mining approaches

As a measure of water quality, water turbidity might be a source of water pollution in drinking water resources. Henceforth, having a reliable tool for predicting turbidity values based on common water quantity/quality measured parameters is of great importance. In the present paper, the performance of the online sequential extreme learning machine (OS-ELM) in predicting daily values of turbidity in Brandywine Creek, Pennsylvania, is evaluated. For this purpose, in addition to the developed OS-ELM, several data-driven models, that is, multilayer perceptron neural network (MLPANN), the classification and regression tree (CART), the group method of data handling (GMDH) and the response surface method (RSM) have been applied. The general findings of the study confirm the superiority of the OS-ELM model over the other applied models so that the OS-ELM improved the averaged RMSE of the predicted values 9.1, 11.7, 20.5 and 29.3% over the MLPANN, GMDH, RSM and CART models, respectively.</p

Guía Clínica Española del Acceso Vascular para Hemodiálisis

El acceso vascular para hemodiálisis es esencial para el enfermo renal tanto por su morbimortalidad asociada como por su repercusión en la calidad de vida. El proceso que va desde la creación y mantenimiento del acceso vascular hasta el tratamiento de sus complicaciones constituye un reto para la toma de decisiones debido a la complejidad de la patología existente y a la diversidad de especialidades involucradas. Con el fin de conseguir un abordaje consensuado, el Grupo Español Multidisciplinar del Acceso Vascular (GEMAV), que incluye expertos de las cinco sociedades científicas implicadas (nefrología [S.E.N.], cirugía vascular [SEACV], radiología vascular e intervencionista [SERAM-SERVEI], enfermedades infecciosas [SEIMC] y enfermería nefrológica [SEDEN]), con el soporte metodológico del Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano, ha realizado una actualización de la Guía del Acceso Vascular para Hemodiálisis publicada en 2005. Esta guía mantiene una estructura similar, revisando la evidencia sin renunciar a la vertiente docente, pero se aportan como novedades, por un lado, la metodología en su elaboración, siguiendo las directrices del sistema GRADE con el objetivo de traducir esta revisión sistemática de la evidencia en recomendaciones que faciliten la toma de decisiones en la práctica clínica habitual y, por otro, el establecimiento de indicadores de calidad que permitan monitorizar la calidad asistencial.Vascular access for haemodialysis is key in renal patients both due to its associated morbidity and mortality and due to its impact on quality of life. The process, from the creation and maintenance of vascular access to the treatment of its complications, represents a challenge when it comes to decision-making, due to the complexity of the existing disease and the diversity of the specialities involved. With a view to finding a common approach, the Spanish Multidisciplinary Group on Vascular Access (GEMAV), which includes experts from the five scientific societies involved (nephrology [S.E.N.], vascular surgery [SEACV], vascular and interventional radiology [SERAM-SERVEI], infectious diseases [SEIMC] and nephrology nursing [SEDEN]), along with the methodological support of the Cochrane Center, has updated the Guidelines on Vascular Access for Haemodialysis, published in 2005. These guidelines maintain a similar structure, in that they review the evidence without compromising the educational aspects. However, on one hand, they provide an update to methodology development following the guidelines of the GRADE system in order to translate this systematic review of evidence into recommendations that facilitate decision-making in routine clinical practice, and, on the other hand, the guidelines establish quality indicators which make it possible to monitor the quality of healthcare

Guía Clínica Española del Acceso Vascular para Hemodiálisis

El acceso vascular para hemodiálisis es esencial para el enfermo renal tanto por su morbimortalidad asociada como por su repercusión en la calidad de vida. El proceso que va desde la creación y mantenimiento del acceso vascular hasta el tratamiento de sus complicaciones constituye un reto para la toma de decisiones debido a la complejidad de la patología existente y a la diversidad de especialidades involucradas. Con el fin de conseguir un abordaje consensuado, el Grupo Español Multidisciplinar del Acceso Vascular (GEMAV), que incluye expertos de las cinco sociedades científicas implicadas (nefrología [S.E.N.], cirugía vascular [SEACV], radiología vascular e intervencionista [SERAM-SERVEI], enfermedades infecciosas [SEIMC] y enfermería nefrológica [SEDEN]), con el soporte metodológico del Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano, ha realizado una actualización de la Guía del Acceso Vascular para Hemodiálisis publicada en 2005. Esta guía mantiene una estructura similar, revisando la evidencia sin renunciar a la vertiente docente, pero se aportan como novedades, por un lado, la metodología en su elaboración, siguiendo las directrices del sistema GRADE con el objetivo de traducir esta revisión sistemática de la evidencia en recomendaciones que faciliten la toma de decisiones en la práctica clínica habitual y, por otro, el establecimiento de indicadores de calidad que permitan monitorizar la calidad asistencial.Vascular access for haemodialysis is key in renal patients both due to its associated morbidity and mortality and due to its impact on quality of life. The process, from the creation and maintenance of vascular access to the treatment of its complications, represents a challenge when it comes to decision-making, due to the complexity of the existing disease and the diversity of the specialities involved. With a view to finding a common approach, the Spanish Multidisciplinary Group on Vascular Access (GEMAV), which includes experts from the five scientific societies involved (nephrology [S.E.N.], vascular surgery [SEACV], vascular and interventional radiology [SERAM-SERVEI], infectious diseases [SEIMC] and nephrology nursing [SEDEN]), along with the methodological support of the Cochrane Center, has updated the Guidelines on Vascular Access for Haemodialysis, published in 2005. These guidelines maintain a similar structure, in that they review the evidence without compromising the educational aspects. However, on one hand, they provide an update to methodology development following the guidelines of the GRADE system in order to translate this systematic review of evidence into recommendations that facilitate decision-making in routine clinical practice, and, on the other hand, the guidelines establish quality indicators which make it possible to monitor the quality of healthcare

Prevalencia de infección por coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 en pacientes y profesionales de un hospital de media y larga estancia en España

Background and goals: The aim of the study is to know the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients and professional staff of a medium or long-stay hospital during the peak period of the pandemic in Spain, spring 2020. Material and methods: At the end of February 2020, we developed at the hospital a strategy to diagnose the SARS-CoV-2 infection consisting of complementing the realization of PCR tests at real time with a quick technique of lateral flow immunochromatography to detect IgG and IgM antibodies against the virus. We also developed a protocol to realize those diagnostic tests and considered an infection (current or past) a positive result in any of the above tests. We included 524 participants in the study (230 patients and 294 hospital staff), and divided them into hospital patients and Hemodialysis outpatients. Furthermore, we divided the hospital staff into healthcare and non-healthcare staff. The documented period was from March, 20th to April, 21st, 2020. Results: 26 out of 230 patients tested positive in any of the diagnostic techniques (PCR, antibodies IgG, IgM) with a 11.30% prevalence. According to patients groups, we got a 14.38% prevalence in hospital patients vs. 5.95% in outpatients, with a significantly higher risk in admitted patients after adjustment for age and gender (OR=3, 309, 95%CI: 1, 154-9, 495). 24 out of 294 hospital staff tested positive in any of the diagnostic techniques, with a 8.16% prevalence. According to the groups, we got a 8.91% prevalence in healthcare staff vs. 4.26% in non-healthcare staff. Thus, we do not see any statistically significant differences between hospital staff and patients as far as prevalence is concerned (P=0, 391), (OR=2, 200, 95%CI: 0, 500-9, 689). Conclusions: The result of the study was a quite low prevalence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection, in both patients and hospital staff, being the hospital patients’ prevalence rate higher than the outpatients’, and the healthcare staff higher than the non-healthcare''s. Combining PCR tests (gold standard) with antibodies tests proved useful as a diagnostic strategy

Sparsentan in patients with IgA nephropathy: a prespecified interim analysis from a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial

Background: Sparsentan is a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin and angiotensin receptor antagonist being examined in an ongoing phase 3 trial in adults with IgA nephropathy. We report the prespecified interim analysis of the primary proteinuria efficacy endpoint, and safety. Methods: PROTECT is an international, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study, being conducted in 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries. The study examines sparsentan versus irbesartan in adults (aged ≥18 years) with biopsy-proven IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of 1·0 g/day or higher despite maximised renin-angiotensin system inhibitor treatment for at least 12 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sparsentan 400 mg once daily or irbesartan 300 mg once daily, stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate at screening (30 to &lt;60 mL/min per 1·73 m2 and ≥60 mL/min per 1·73 m2) and urine protein excretion at screening (≤1·75 g/day and &gt;1·75 g/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 36 in urine protein–creatinine ratio based on a 24-h urine sample, assessed using mixed model repeated measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were safety endpoints. All endpoints were examined in all participants who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. The study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings: Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 404 participants were randomly assigned to sparsentan (n=202) or irbesartan (n=202) and received treatment. At week 36, the geometric least squares mean percent change from baseline in urine protein–creatinine ratio was statistically significantly greater in the sparsentan group (–49·8%) than the irbesartan group (–15·1%), resulting in a between-group relative reduction of 41% (least squares mean ratio=0·59; 95% CI 0·51–0·69; p&lt;0·0001). TEAEs with sparsentan were similar to irbesartan. There were no cases of severe oedema, heart failure, hepatotoxicity, or oedema-related discontinuations. Bodyweight changes from baseline were not different between the sparsentan and irbesartan groups. Interpretation: Once-daily treatment with sparsentan produced meaningful reduction in proteinuria compared with irbesartan in adults with IgA nephropathy. Safety of sparsentan was similar to irbesartan. Future analyses after completion of the 2-year double-blind period will show whether these beneficial effects translate into a long-term nephroprotective potential of sparsentan. Funding: Travere Therapeutics