XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(12)62167-9.pdf

Frailty in elderly people

ESPEN guideline: Clinical nutrition in surgery

https://aasldpubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/hep.26972

Evaluation for liver transplantation in adults: 2013 practice guideline by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the American Society of Transplantation

ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition and hydration in geriatrics

Background
Pressure ulcers affect approximately 10% of people in hospitals and older people are at highest risk A correlation between inadequate nutritional intake and the development of pressure ulcers has been suggested by several studies, but the results have been inconsistent

Objectives
To evaluate the effects of enteral and parenteral nutrition on the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers

Search methods
In March 2014, for this first update, we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Trials Register, the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library), the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA) (The Cochrane Library), the Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (The Cochrane Library), Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL No date, language or publication status limits were applied

Selection criteria
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of enteral or parenteral nutrition on the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers, which measured the incidence of new ulcers, ulcer healing or changes in pressure ulcer severity There were no restrictions on types of patient, setting, date, publication status or language

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently screened for inclusion, and disagreement was resolved by discussion Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias

Main results
We included 23 RCTs, many were small (between 9 and 4023 participants, median 88) and at high risk of bias

Eleven trials compared a combination of nutritional supplements, consisting of a minimum of energy and protein in different dosages, for the prevention of pressure ulcers A meta-analysis of eight trials (6062 participants) that compared the effects of mixed nutritional supplements with standard hospital diet found no clear evidence of an effect of supplementation on pressure ulcer development (pooled RR 086; 95% CI 073 to 100; P value 005; I2 = 13%, random effects) This outcome is at unclear or high risk of bias

Fourteen trials evaluated the effects of nutritional supplements on the healing of existing pressure ulcers: seven trials examined mixed nutritional supplements, three the effects of proteins, two trials examined zinc, and two studies examined ascorbic acid The included trials were heterogeneous with regard to participants, interventions, comparisons and outcomes and meta-analysis was not appropriate There was no clear evidence of an improvement in pressure ulcer healing from the nutritional supplements evaluated in any of these individual studies

Authors' conclusions
There is currently no clear evidence of a benefit associated with nutritional interventions for either the prevention or treatment of pressure ulcers Further trials of high methodological quality are necessary

Nutritional interventions for preventing and treating pressure ulcers

Background
Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (omega-3 PUFAs) from fish and plant sources are commonly considered as a promising non-medical alternative to improve brain functions and slow down the progression of dementia. This assumption is mostly based on findings of preclinical studies and epidemiological research. Resulting explanatory models aim at the role omega-3 PUFAs play in the development and integrity of the brain's neurons, their protective antioxidative effect on cell membranes and potential neurochemical mechanisms directly related to Alzheimer-specific pathology. Epidemiological research also found evidence of malnutrition in people with dementia. Considering this and the fact that omega-3 PUFA cannot be synthesised by humans, omega-3 PUFAs might be a promising treatment option for dementia.

Objectives
To assess the efficacy and safety of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) supplementation for the treatment of people with dementia.

Search methods
We searched the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (ALOIS), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) portal/ICTRP on 10 December 2015. We contacted manufacturers of omega-3 supplements and scanned reference lists of landmark papers and included articles.

Selection criteria
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which omega-3 PUFA in the form of supplements or enriched diets were administered to people with Alzheimer's disease (AD), vascular dementia (VaD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD) or frontotemporal dementia (FTD).

Data collection and analysis
The primary outcome measures of interest were changes in global and specific cognitive functions, functional performance, dementia severity and adverse effects. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of trials according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We received unpublished data from the trial authors and collected adverse effects information from the published articles. We conducted meta-analyses for available outcome measures at six months.

Main results
We included three comparable randomised, placebo-controlled trials investigating omega-3 PUFA supplements in 632 participants with mild to moderate AD over six, 12 and 18 months. We found no studies investigating other types of dementia. All trials were of high methodological quality. The overall quality of evidence for most of the outcomes was high.

There was no evidence of a benefit from omega-3 PUFAs on cognitive function when measured at six months with the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive subscale (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.19 to 0.15; 566 participants; 3 studies; high quality evidence) or Mini-Mental State Examination (mean difference (MD) 0.18, 95% CI -1.05 to 1.41; 202 participants; 2 studies; high quality evidence) or on activities of daily living (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.16; 544 participants; 2 studies; high quality evidence). There was also no effect at six months of treatment on severity of dementia measured with the Clinical Dementia Rating - Sum of Boxes (MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.57; 542 participants; 2 studies; high quality evidence) or on quality of life measured with the Quality of Life Alzheimer's Disease scale (MD -0.10, 95% CI -1.28 to 1.08; 322 participants; 1 study; high quality evidence). There was no difference at six months on mental health measured with the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.54; 178 participants: 1 study; high quality of evidence) or the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.27; 543 participants; 2 studies; high quality of evidence). One very small study showed a benefit for omega-3 PUFAs in instrumental activities of daily living after 12 months of treatment (MD -3.50, 95% CI -4.30 to -2.70; 22 participants; moderate quality evidence). The included studies did not measure specific cognitive function. The studies did not report adverse events well. Two studies stated that all adverse events were mild and that they did not differ in overall frequency between omega-3 PUFA and placebo groups. Data from one study showed no difference between groups in frequency of any adverse event (risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10; 402 participants; 1 study; moderate quality evidence) or any serious adverse event (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.41; 402 participants; 1 study; high quality evidence) at 18 months of treatment.

Authors' conclusions
We found no convincing evidence for the efficacy of omega-3 PUFA supplements in the treatment of mild to moderate AD. This result was consistent for all outcomes relevant for people with dementia. Adverse effects of omega-3 PUFAs seemed to be low, but based on the evidence synthesised in this review, we cannot make a final statement on tolerability. The effects on other populations remain unclear.

/pdf/omega-3-fatty-acids-for-the-treatment-of-dementia-294d84jeft.pdf

Omega‐3 fatty acids for the treatment of dementia

Socioeconomic inequalities in access to treatment for coronary heart disease: A systematic review

Summary
Background

The introduction of the International Classification of Functioning, Disabilities and Health of the World Health Organization in 2001 made social participation a major rehabilitation outcome and the ultimate goal of rehabilitation services. There is no available instrument to measure the youth participation in leisure activities apart from asking the youth themselves. The goal of this study was to present a German version of the Children's Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment and Preferences for Activities of Children (CAPE/PAC).



Methods

The CAPE/PAC questionnaire was translated into German, a cultural adaptation process was designed and a reliability study was conducted. One hundred and fifty-two youths with and without disabilities, with a mean age of 15.2 years (standard deviation 1.7), participated in the study. The participants completed CAPE and PAC twice within 4 weeks. Reliability was examined by intraclass correlation coefficients, standard error of measurement, smallest detectable change and Cronbach's alpha.



Results

The absolute values of participation differ between the typically developed youth group and those with impairments; the reliability of the CAPE/PAC is comparable in both groups. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.43 to 0.74 for the CAPE and from 0.71 to 0.83 for the PAC in all participants. The alpha values for internal consistency ranged from 0.42 to 0.82 for the CAPE and from 0.65 to 0.92 for the PAC.



Conclusions

The German version of the PAC showed satisfactory reliability; however, reliability was not satisfactory for all scores of the CAPE, but comparable with versions in other languages. The need for newly developed participation measurements requires further discussion.

Reliability of the German version of the Children's Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment (CAPE) and Preferences for Activities of Children (PAC).

Background
Weight loss, malnutrition and dehydration are common problems for people with dementia. Environmental modifications such as, change of routine, context or ambience at mealtimes, or behavioural modifications, such as education or training of people with dementia or caregivers, may be considered to try to improve food and fluid intake and nutritional status of people with dementia.

Objectives
Primary: To assess the effects of environmental or behavioural modifications on food and fluid intake and nutritional status in people with dementia. Secondary: To assess the effects of environmental or behavioural modifications in connection with nutrition on mealtime behaviour, cognitive and functional outcomes and quality of life, in specific settings (i.e. home care, residential care and nursing home care) for different stages of dementia. To assess the adverse consequences or effects of the included interventions.

Search methods
We searched the Specialized Register of Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement (ALOIS), MEDLINE, Eembase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) portal/ICTRP on 17 January 2018. We scanned reference lists of other reviews and of included articles.

Selection criteria
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating interventions designed to modify the mealtime environment of people with dementia, to modify the mealtime behaviour of people with dementia or their caregivers, or both, with the intention of improving food and fluid intake. We included people with any common dementia subtype.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included trials. We assessed the quality of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

Main results
We included nine studies, investigating 1502 people. Three studies explicitly investigated participants with Alzheimer's disease; six did not specify the type of dementia. Five studies provided clear measures to identify the severity of dementia at baseline, and overall very mild to severe stages were covered. The interventions and outcome measures were diverse. The overall quality of evidence was mainly low to very low.

One study implemented environmental as well as behavioural modifications by providing additional food items between meals and personal encouragement to consume them. The control group received no intervention. Differences between groups were very small and the quality of the evidence from this study was very low, so we are very uncertain of any effect of this intervention.

The remaining eight studies implemented behavioural modifications.

Three studies provided nutritional education and nutrition promotion programmes. Control groups did not receive these programmes. After 12 months, the intervention group showed slightly higher protein intake per day (mean difference (MD) 0.11 g/kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.23; n = 78, 1 study; low-quality evidence), but there was no clear evidence of a difference in nutritional status assessed with body mass index (BMI) (MD -0.26 kg/m² favouring control, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.19; n = 734, 2 studies; moderate-quality evidence), body weight (MD -1.60 kg favouring control, 95% CI -3.47 to 0.27; n = 656, 1 study; moderate-quality evidence), or score on Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) (MD -0.10 favouring control, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.47; n = 656, 1 study; low-quality evidence). After six months, the intervention group in one study had slightly lower BMI (MD -1.79 kg/m² favouring control, 95% CI -1.28 to -2.30; n = 52, 1 study; moderate-quality evidence) and body weight (MD -8.11 kg favouring control, 95% CI -2.06 to -12.56; n = 52, 1 study; moderate-quality evidence). This type of intervention may have a small positive effect on food intake, but little or no effect, or a negative effect, on nutritional status.

Two studies compared self-feeding skills training programmes. In one study, the control group received no training and in the other study the control group received a different self-feeding skills training programme. For both comparisons the quality of the evidence was very low and we are very uncertain whether these interventions have any effect.

One study investigated general training of nurses to impart knowledge on how to feed people with dementia and improve attitudes towards people with dementia. Again, the quality of the evidence was very low so that we cannot be certain of any effect.

Two studies investigated vocal or tactile positive feedback provided by caregivers while feeding participants. After three weeks, the intervention group showed an increase in calories consumed per meal (MD 200 kcal, 95% CI 119.81 to 280.19; n = 42, 1 study; low-quality evidence) and protein consumed per meal (MD 15g, 95% CI 7.74 to 22.26; n = 42, 1 study; low-quality evidence). This intervention may increase the intake of food and liquids slightly; nutritional status was not assessed.

Authors' conclusions
Due to the quantity and quality of the evidence currently available, we cannot identify any specific environmental or behavioural modifications for improving food and fluid intake in people with dementia.

/pdf/environmental-and-behavioural-modifications-for-improving-et3u455e1t.pdf

Astrid Fink

Papers

Nutritional interventions for preventing and treating pressure ulcers

Omega‐3 fatty acids for the treatment of dementia

Socioeconomic inequalities in access to treatment for coronary heart disease: A systematic review

Reliability of the German version of the Children's Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment (CAPE) and Preferences for Activities of Children (PAC).

Environmental and behavioural modifications for improving food and fluid intake in people with dementia