Nutrición enteral en el paciente neurológico: ¿es suficiente el contenido en vitamina D en las fórmulas de uso habitual?

INTRODUCTION Vitamin D deficiency produces inadequate bone mineralization, proximal muscle weakness, abnormal gait and increased risk of falls and fractures. Moreover, in epidemiological studies, has been associated with increased risk of cancer, autoimmune diseases, type 1 and 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, infectious diseases, cardiovascular diseases and depression. When synthesis through the skin by sun exposure is not possible and the patient can not eat by mouth, as in the advanced stages of various neurological diseases, the supply of vitamin D has to be done by enteral nutrition. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study is to review the role of vitamin D in a common group of neurological conditions that often require artificial nutrition and analyze whether the vitamin D of different enteral nutrition formulas is adequate to meet the needs of this group of patients. RESULTS Numerous studies have shown the association between vitamin D deficiency and increased incidence of dementia, stroke and other neurodegenerative diseases. Interventions aimed to increase levels of vit. D and its effects on functional (falls, pain, quality of life) and cardiovascular goals (cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular risk factors) have obtained as highlight data a clear reduction of falls and fractures, while the evidence for the other parameters studied is still limited and inconsistent. The content of calcium and vitamin D of enteral formulas is legislated in our country. The total amount of vitamin D for a daily intake of 1,500-2,000 kcal ranges between 300 and 1,600 IU/d (mean ± SD: 32.9 ± 8.5 mg/100 kcal) in the complete formulas for enteral nutrition most commonly used. 50% of the diets studied, for an intake of 2,000 kcal/d, and 90% for an intake of 1,500 kcal/d, provide less than 600 IU/d of vitamin D. DISCUSSION Some revised recently guidelines published recommendations of daily intake of vitamin D. The document published by the U.S. Institute of Medicine recommended for adults between 19 and 70 years, 600 IU/d and up from 70, proposes 800 IU/d of vitamin D. These amounts are deemed insufficient by other scientific societies to state that to achieve blood levels of 25 (OH) D equal or greater than 30 ng/ml may be required a daily intake of 1,500-2,000 IU and a number two or three times higher if previous deficiency exists. CONCLUSIONS Further controlled studies are needed to ascertain which is the appropriate dose of vitamin D in advanced stages of neurological disease, where sun exposure is difficult and unlikely. We suggest that the vitamin D content should probably be reconsidered in enteral nutrition formulas, which, in light of recent publications appear as clearly insufficient for standard energy intakes (1,500-2,000 kcal).

Dapagliflozina

Dapagliflozin is a new oral antidiabetic agent whose mechanism of action increases renal glucose excretion, independently of insulin secretion or insulin action. The efficacy of dapagliflozin is dependent on renal function. The use of dapagliflozin has been licensed to improve glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus as: - monotherapy when diet and exercise alone do not provide adequate glycaemic control in patients for whom the use of metformin is considered inappropriate due to intolerance. - Add-on combination therapy with other glucose-lowering agents including insulin, when these, together with diet and exercise, do not provide adequate glycaemic control. Funding has been restricted to the use of dapagliflozin, prior approval, as dual therapy in combination with metformin. This report aims to assess the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, rate the added therapeutic value of dapagliflozin in type 2 diabetes mellitus and identify its current place in therapy. A systematic literature search was carried out, for the purpose of this evaluation, using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and IDIS databases as well as other secondary sources of evidence-based medicine, therapeutic bulletins and national and international drug agencies. Following the critical reading and analysis of the selected articles, a summary is made out of the scientific evidence available, using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria. Only one randomised clinical trial, out of the ten trials found, was considered to be a suitable comparison (versus a dual therapy in combination with the sulfonylurea glipizide in patients inadequately controlled with metformin, diet and exercise). No trials have evaluated variables of relevance to patients, except for safety variables. The main efficacy variable in the trials was the change from baseline in HbA1c, except for a study which evaluated the change from baseline in total body weight as main variable. Baseline characteristics of the patients enrolled in the trials significantly differ from those of the population with diabetes in our society which tend to be of an older age and have a longer history of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The major limitation of dapagliflozin derives from its mechanism of action, since its efficacy decreases as renal function declines. The use of dapagliflozin is not recommended in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment ((CrCl<60ml/min or GFG <60 ml/min/1.73 m2) nor in elderly patients, in which a decrease in renal function can be expected. The assessment of safety includes the incidence and rate of discontinuations due to adverse events, episodes of hypoglycaemia, signs or symptoms of genital and urinary tract infections, dehydration, hypovolaemia and hypotension. Further pharmacoepidemiological studies are to be carried out to clarify the long-term effects of dapagliflozin on renal function and the potential effect in the development of breast and bladder tumours. Dapagliflozin as monotherapy has not been evaluated against adequate comparators (sulfonylureas, pioglitazone, gliptins). In combination therapy with metformin, the efficacy of dapagliflozin was shown to be non-inferior to glipizide plus metformin, resulting in a mean reduction of 0.52% in HbA1c, with a difference of 0.00 among both groups (95% CI: -0.11 a 0.11). There are no comparative data against other second-line treatment options. As shown in the studies, the overall incidence of adverse events with dapagliflozin as monotherapy (21.5%) was similar to that observed with placebo, and greater to that observed with metformin (15.4%). Hypoglycaemia of any type was the adverse event more frequently reported. The incidence of severe hypoglycaemic events observed in most of the studies was low. The overall incidence of adverse events observed in the study that compared dapagliflozin+metformin against glipizide+metformin was similar for both groups (27%) and incidence of hypoglycaemic events with dapagliflozin (3.5%) was significantly lower to that observed with glipizide (40.8%). Reductions of body weight of about 2 to 3 kg and a slight decrease in blood pressure (1 to 5 mmHg) have been observed in all studies in the groups treated with dapagliflozin together with diet and exercise. Dosing scheme (every 24 hours) is similar to other oral antidiabetic agents and its cost is similar to that for gliptines and higher to that for sulfonylureas or generic pioglitazone. Funding has been limited to the use of dapagliflozin as dual therapy regimen in combination with metformin as an option for patients with contraindication or intolerance to sulfonylureas, such a those experiencing frequent hypoglycaemic events, weight loss associated risks, as long as they are under 75 years of age and have no moderate to severe renal impairment. In the light of the above, we consider dapagliflozin means no therapeutic innovation in the therapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus over other therapeutic alternatives available.

The administration of atomoxetine during alcohol deprivation induces a time-limited increase in alcohol consumption after relapse.

The administration of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) typically used as antidepressants increases alcohol consumption after an alcohol deprivation period in rats. However, the appearance of this effect after the treatment with selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) has not been studied. In the present work we examined the effects of a 15-d treatment with the SNRI atomoxetine (1, 3 and 10 mg/kg, i.p.) in male rats trained to drink alcohol solutions in a 4-bottle choice test. The treatment with atomoxetine (10 mg/kg, i.p.) during an alcohol deprivation period increased alcohol consumption after relapse. This effect only lasted one week, disappearing thereafter. Treatment with atomoxetine did not cause a behavioral sensitized response to a challenge dose of amphetamine (1.5 mg/kg, i.p.), indicating the absence of a supersensitive dopaminergic transmission. This effect is markedly different from that of SSRI antidepressants that produced both long-lasting increases in alcohol consumption and behavioral sensitization. Clinical implications are discussed.