Eficacia, Coste-efectividad y efectos sobre la calidad de vida de la suplementación nutricional.

This article summarizes the main results and conclusions presented in the Symposium "Nutritional supplementation: evidences and experiences" that took place in the XXIIIrd SENPE Congress (2008). Protein energy malnutrition, that can affect 30-50% of hospitalized patients, increases both time of hospitalization and costs of medical care of this kind of patients. There is a lot of scientific evidences demonstrating that the use of nutritional supplementation improves nutritional status or prevents malnutrition in those patients who do not meet their nutritional needs with a conventional diet or an adapted one with no replacing intake from normal food. This is strengthened by the results that demonstrate the rol of nutritional supplements improving nutritional and functional parameters. Current bibliographic reviews focused on certain clinical frameworks (i.g. geriatrics, oncology), prove that nutritional supplements reduce complications related to pathology and to nutritional status, and also reduce length of hospitalization and mortality. More studies regarding to efficacy of oral nutritional supplements are needed. These studies should be carried out with a period of follow-up longer than the current published studies have. As well as effective, nutritional supplements become a save therapeutic intervention with no important adverse events that, according to bibliography, improve patient's functionality and quality of life. It is worth mentioning that nutritional supplements can be effective on certain kind of patients, for instance, malnourished elderly or elderly in risk of malnourishment, and hospitalized surgical patients. Scientific literature refers that it is necessary to carry out more studies, with an accurate methodology, which assess the effect of nutritional supplements on quality of life and its cost-effectiveness on malnourished patients regarding specific clinical situations. That would allow physicians to make clinical decisions based on evidences and cost analysis.

Oral and general health-related quality of life in patients treated for oral cancer compared to control group.

BACKGROUND Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is gaining importance as a valuable outcome measure in oral cancer area. The aim of this study was to assess the general and oral HRQoL of oral and oropharyngeal cancer patients 6 or more months after treatment and compare them with a population free from this disease. METHODS A cross-sectional study was carried out with patients treated for oral cancer at least 6 months post-treatment and a gender and age group matched control group. HRQoL was measured with the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12); oral HRQoL (OHRQoL) was evaluated using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) and the Oral Impacts on Daily Performances (OIDP). Multivariable regression models assessed the association between the outcomes (SF-12, OHIP-14 and OIDP) and the exposure (patients versus controls), adjusting for sex, age, social class, functional tooth units and presence of illness. RESULTS For patients (n = 142) and controls (n = 142), 64.1% were males. The mean age was 65.2 (standard deviation (sd): 12.9) years in patients and 67.5 (sd: 13.7) years in controls. Patients had worse SF-12 Physical Component Summary scores than controls even in fully the adjusted model [β-coefficient = -0.11 (95% CI: -5.12-(-0.16)]. The differences in SF-12 Mental Component Summary were not statistically significant. Regarding OHRQoL patients had 11.63 (95% CI: 6.77-20.01) higher odds for the OHIP-14 and 21.26 (95% CI: 11.54-39.13) higher odds for OIDP of being in a worse category of OHRQoL compared to controls in the fully adjusted model. CONCLUSION At least 6 months after treatment, oral cancer patients had worse OHRQoL, worse physical HRQoL and similar psychological HRQoL than the general population.