Pablo B. Pedrianes-Martin

Malnutrition is a common condition associated with various pathologies such as infections, neoplasms and digestive system disorders. Patients can be managed using different strategies, which include dietary modifications or oral nutritional supplements (ONS). It is important to promote good ONS adherence in order to attain clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Several factors (amount, type, duration and tolerability) may have an impact on ONS adherence. PerceptiONS is a descriptive, cross-sectional observational study based on an ad hoc electronic survey designed to explore physicians’ perception of malnourished outpatients prescribed ONS. The survey considered adherence, acceptance/satisfaction, tolerability and benefits within the context of Spain’s healthcare system. The perceptions of 548 physicians regarding the experience of 2516 patients were analyzed. From the physicians’ perspective, 57.11% of patients adhered to over 75% of the prescribed ONS. The organoleptic properties of ONS represented the aspect with the most positive impact on adherence, with smell (43.72%) ranking as the top characteristic. In general, patients were satisfied (90.10%) with the ONS, with their related benefits (88.51%) and their organoleptic properties (90.42%), and accepted ONS in their daily diet (88.63%). ONS improved patients’ general condition (87.04%), quality of life (QoL) (81.96%) and vitality/energy (81.28%). Physicians would prescribe the same ONS again in 96.4% of the cases.

Hypertension in obese and overweight patients is associated with an elevated resting metabolic rate (RMR). The aim of this study was to determine whether RMR is reduced in hypertensive patients treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and blockers (ARB). The RMR was determined by indirect calorimetry in 174 volunteers; 93 (46.5 %) were hypertensive, of which 16 men and 13 women were treated with ACEI/ARB, while 30 men and 19 women with untreated hypertension served as a control group. Treated and untreated hypertensives had similar age, BMI, physical activity, and cardiorespiratory fitness. The RMR normalized to the lean body mass (LBM) was 15% higher in the untreated than ACEI/ARB-treated hypertensive women (p = .003). After accounting for LBM, whole-body fat mass, age, the double product (heart rate x systolic blood pressure), and the distance walked per day, the RMR was 2.9% lower in the patients taking ACEI/ARB (p = .26, treatment x sex interaction p = .005). LBM, age, and the double product explained 78% of the variability in RMR (R² = 0.78, p < .001). In contrast, fat mass, the distance walked per day, and total T4 or TSH did not add predictive power to the model. Compared to men, a greater RMR per kg of LBM was observed in untreated hypertensive overweight and obese women, while this sex difference was not observed in patients treated with ACEI or ARBs. In conclusion, our results indicate that elevated RMR per kg of LBM may be normalized by antagonizing the renin-angiotensin system.

The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether differences in body composition, pharmacological treatment, and physical activity explain the increased resting metabolic rate (RMR) and impaired insulin sensitivity in hypertension. Resting blood pressure, RMR (indirect calorimetry), body composition (dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry), physical activity (accelerometry), maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max) (ergospirometry), and insulin sensitivity (Matsuda index) were measured in 174 patients (88 men and 86 women; 20–68 years) with overweight or obesity. Hypertension (HTA) was present in 51 men (58%) and 42 women (49%) (p = .29). RMR was 6.9% higher in hypertensives than normotensives (1777 ± 386 and 1663 ± 383 kcal d⁻¹, p = .044). The double product (systolic blood pressure × heart rate) was 18% higher in hypertensive than normotensive patients (p < .001). The observed differences in absolute RMR were non‐significant after adjusting for total lean mass and total fat mass (estimated means: 1702 kcal d⁻¹, CI: 1656–1750; and 1660 kcal d⁻¹, CI: 1611–1710 kcal d⁻¹, for the hypertensive and normotensive groups, respectively, p = .19, HTA × sex interaction p = .37). Lean mass, the double product, and age were the variables with the higher predictive value of RMR in hypertensive patients. Insulin sensitivity was lower in hypertensive than in normotensive patients, but these differences disappeared after accounting for physical activity and VO_2max. In summary, hypertension is associated with increased RMR and reduced insulin sensitivity. The increased RMR is explained by an elevated myocardial oxygen consumption due to an increased resting double product, combined with differences in body composition between hypertensive and normotensive subjects.

This study aimed to determine whether the measured resting energy expenditure (REE) in overweight and obese patients living in a temperate climate is lower than the predicted REE; and to ascertain which equation should be used in patients living in a temperate climate. REE (indirect calorimetry) and body composition (DXA) were measured in 174 patients (88 men and 86 women; 20–68 years old) with overweight or obesity (BMI 27–45 kg m⁻²). All volunteers were residents in Gran Canaria (monthly temperatures: 18–24 °C). REE was lower than predicted by most equations in our population. Age and BMI were similar in both sexes. In the whole population, the equations of Mifflin, Henry and Rees, Livingston and Owen, had similar levels of accuracy (non-significant bias of 0.7%, 1.1%, 0.6%, and −2.2%, respectively). The best equation to predict resting energy expenditure in overweight and moderately obese men and women living in a temperate climate all year round is the Mifflin equation. In men, the equations by Henry and Rees, Livingston, and by Owen had predictive accuracies comparable to that of Mifflin. The body composition-based equation of Johnston was slightly more accurate than Mifflin’s in men. In women, none of the body composition-based equations outperformed Mifflin’s.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a progressive condition influenced by many factors. Surgery usually produces hyperglycemia in the postoperative period, which leads to adverse clinical outcomes. Possible consequences of surgery on beta cell reserve have not been explored. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of surgery on the beta cell function of patients with T2DM undergoing non-urgent surgery. We performed a prospective observational study on the population of patients with T2DM scheduled for surgery in a tertiary level hospital. After adequate wash-out periods for antidiabetic medications, two blood samples were collected: one fasting and the other one six minutes after an intravenous stimulation with glucagon. Glucose, insulin and C-peptide concentrations were measured. This determination was repeated about a month after surgery. We included 42 patients with the following characteristics: 47.6% males, average HbA1c 7%, average time from T2DM diagnosis 7.3 years and average age 62.1 years. Intravenous glucagon produced a significant increase in C-peptide after six minutes in both the presurgical (C-peptide values: basal 2.97 ng/mL; after glucagon 5.53 ng/mL) and the postsurgical (C-peptide values: basal 3.12 ng/mL; after glucagon 5.67 ng/mL) periods (mean difference 2.56 ng/mL and 2.55 ng/mL respectively, P0.05). The pancreatic beta reserve of patients with T2DM was not affected a month after the non-urgent surgery. The direct measurement of pancreatic function by dynamic assessment with glucagon did not change, nor did we find alterations in the indirect calculation of insulin secretion using the HOMA-B. None of these parameters reached statistical significance. Non-urgent surgical procedures included in our study are safe for patients with short lasting, properly controlled T2DM, from the point of view of glucose metabolism assessed by pancreatic insulin secretion. We can consider non-urgent surgical procedures safe from the point of view of the preservation of the pancreatic reserve in patients with T2DM. A sharp deterioration of metabolic control is not expectable in the short term for these patients, which represent a large proportion of the population undergoing surgery in modern hospitals.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a chronic disease whose health outcomes are related to patients and healthcare professionals’ decision-making. The Diabetes Intervention study in the Canary Islands (INDICA study) aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of educational interventions supported by new technology decision tools for type 2 diabetes patients and primary care professionals in the Canary Islands. The INDICA study is an open, community-based, multicenter, clinical controlled trial with random allocation by clusters to one of three interventions or to usual care. The setting is primary care where physicians and nurses are invited to participate. Patients with diabetes diagnosis, 18–65 years of age, and regular users of mobile phone were randomly selected. Patients with severe comorbidities were excluded. The clusters are primary healthcare practices with enough professionals and available places to provide the intervention. The calculated sample size was 2,300 patients. Patients in group 1 are receiving an educational group program of eight sessions every 3 months led by trained nurses and monitored by means of logs and a web-based platform and tailored semi-automated SMS for continuous support. Primary care professionals in group 2 are receiving a short educational program to update their diabetes knowledge, which includes a decision support tool embedded into the electronic clinical record and a monthly feedback report of patients’ results. Group 3 is receiving a combination of the interventions for patients and professionals. The primary endpoint is the change in HbA1c in 2 years. Secondary endpoints are cardiovascular risk factors, macrovascular and microvascular diabetes complications, quality of life, psychological outcomes, diabetes knowledge, and healthcare utilization. Data is being collected from interviews, questionnaires, clinical examinations, and records. Generalized linear mixed models with repeated time measurements will be used to analyze changes in outcomes. The cost-effectiveness analysis, from the healthcare services perspective, involves direct medical costs per quality-adjusted life year gained and two periods, a ‘within-trial’ period and a lifetime Markov model. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses are planned. This ongoing trial aims to set up the implementation of evidence-based programs in the clinical setting for chronic patients. Clinical Trial.gov NCT01657227

Background and Objective: Metabolic syndrome is common in patients with hypertension and increases the risk of developing diabetes mellitus. The objective of this study (the MARCADOR study) was to compare the effects of manidipine 20 mg with the extemporary combination of manidipine 10mg/lisinopril 10 mg, amlodipine 10 mg and telmisartan 80 mg on insulin sensitivity, as well as metabolic, inflammatory and prothrombotic markers, in hypertensive non-diabetic patients with metabolic syndrome. Methods: This study had a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) design. A total of 120 patients aged 35–75 years with stage I—II essential hypertension (systolic blood pressure [BP] 140–179 mmHg, diastolic BP 90–109 mmHg) and metabolic syndrome were recruited from general practitioner clinics in Northern Gran Canaria Island, Spain and randomized to receive amlodipine 10 mg (n = 30), telmisartan 80 mg (n = 30), manidipine 20 mg (n = 30) or (low-dose) manidipine 10 mg/lisinopril 10 mg (n=30), all administered once daily. At baseline and after 14 weeks of treatment, BP, insulin sensitivity, lipid profile, and albumin and metanephrin excretion as well as several other metabolic, inflammatory, prothrombotic and growth/adhesion markers were measured. The primary endpoint was the change in insulin sensitivity. Results: A total of 115 patients completed the study. All treatments significantly lowered BP from baseline. Compared with amlodipine, manidipine had significantly superior effects (pConclusion: In patients with hypertension and metabolic syndrome, manidipine, both alone and in combination with the ACE inhibitor lisinopril, is significantly superior to amlodipine for improving insulin sensitivity as well as several metabolic, inflammatory and prothrombotic markers. Furthermore, the combination of manidipine and lisinopril appears to have greater efficacy than manidipine alone and telmisartan with respect to the improvement of metabolic, inflammatory and prothrombotic markers.