Effectiveness and costs of phototest in dementia and cognitive impairment screening

BACKGROUND To assess and compare the effectiveness and costs of Phototest, Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Memory Impairment Screen (MIS) to screen for dementia (DEM) and cognitive impairment (CI). METHODS A phase III study was conducted over one year in consecutive patients with suspicion of CI or DEM at four Primary Care (PC) centers. After undergoing all screening tests at the PC center, participants were extensively evaluated by researchers blinded to screening test results in a Cognitive-Behavioral Neurology Unit (CBNU). The gold standard diagnosis was established by consensus of expert neurologists. Effectiveness was assessed by the proportion of correct diagnoses (diagnostic accuracy [DA]) and by the kappa index of concordance between test results and gold standard diagnoses. Costs were based on public prices and hospital accounts. RESULTS The study included 140 subjects (48 with DEM, 37 with CI without DEM, and 55 without CI). The MIS could not be applied to 23 illiterate subjects (16.4%). For DEM, the maximum effectiveness of the MMSE was obtained with different cutoff points as a function of educational level [k = 0.31 (95% Confidence interval [95%CI], 0.19-0.43), DA = 0.60 (95%CI, 0.52-0.68)], and that of the MIS with a cutoff of 3/4 [k = 0.63 (95%CI, 0.48-0.78), DA = 0.83 (95%CI, 0.80-0.92)]. Effectiveness of the Phototest [k = 0.71 (95%CI, 0.59-0.83), DA = 0.87 (95%CI, 0.80-0.92)] was similar to that of the MIS and higher than that of the MMSE. Costs were higher with MMSE (275.9 ± 193.3€ [mean ± sd euros]) than with Phototest (208.2 ± 196.8€) or MIS (201.3 ± 193.4€), whose costs did not significantly differ. For CI, the effectiveness did not significantly differ between MIS [k = 0.59 (95%CI, 0.45-0.74), DA = 0.79 (95%CI, 0.64-0.97)] and Phototest [k = 0.58 (95%CI, 0.45-0.74), DA = 0.78 (95%CI, 0.64-0.95)] and was lowest for the MMSE [k = 0.27 (95%CI, 0.09-0.45), DA = 0.69 (95%CI, 0.56-0.84)]. Costs were higher for MMSE (393.4 ± 121.8€) than for Phototest (287.0 ± 197.4€) or MIS (300.1 ± 165.6€), whose costs did not significantly differ. CONCLUSION MMSE is not an effective instrument in our setting. For both DEM and CI, the Phototest and MIS are more effective and less costly, with no difference between them. However, MIS could not be applied to the appreciable percentage of our population who were illiterate.

Proceso INFORNUT: validación de la fase de filtro-FILNUT--y comparación con otros métodos de detección precoz de desnutrición hospitalaria.

INTRODUCTION According to several series, hospital hyponutrition involves 30-50% of hospitalized patients. The high prevalence justifies the need for early detection from admission. There several classical screening tools that show important limitations in their systematic application in daily clinical practice. OBJECTIVES To analyze the relationship between hyponutrition, detected by our screening method, and mortality, hospital stay, or re-admissions. To analyze, as well, the relationship between hyponutrition and prescription of nutritional support. To compare different nutritional screening methods at admission on a random sample of hospitalized patients. Validation of the INFORNUT method for nutritional screening. MATERIAL AND METHODS In a previous phase from the study design, a retrospective analysis with data from the year 2003 was carried out in order to know the situation of hyponutrition in Virgen de la Victoria Hospital, at Malaga, gathering data from the MBDS (Minimal Basic Data Set), laboratory analysis of nutritional risk (FILNUT filter), and prescription of nutritional support. In the experimental phase, a cross-sectional cohort study was done with a random sample of 255 patients, on May of 2004. Anthropometrical study, Subjective Global Assessment (SGA), Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA), Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS), Gassull's method, CONUT and INFORNUT were done. The settings of the INFORNUT filter were: albumin < 3.5 g/dL, and/or total proteins <5 g/dL, and/or prealbumin <18 mg/dL, with or without total lymphocyte count < 1.600 cells/mm3 and/or total cholesterol <180 mg/dL. In order to compare the different methods, a gold standard is created based on the recommendations of the SENPE on anthropometrical and laboratory data. The statistical association analysis was done by the chi-squared test (a: 0.05) and agreement by the k index. RESULTS In the study performed in the previous phase, it is observed that the prevalence of hospital hyponutrition is 53.9%. One thousand six hundred and forty four patients received nutritional support, of which 66.9% suffered from hyponutrition. We also observed that hyponutrition is one of the factors favoring the increase in mortality (hyponourished patients 15.19% vs. non-hyponourished 2.58%), hospital stay (hyponourished patients 20.95 days vs. non-hyponourished 8.75 days), and re-admissions (hyponourished patients 14.30% vs. non-hyponourished 6%). The results from the experimental study are as follows: the prevalence of hyponutrition obtained by the gold standard was 61%, INFORNUT 60%. Agreement levels between INFORNUT, CONUT, and GASSULL are good or very good between them (k: 0.67 INFORNUT with CONUT, and k: 0.94 INFORNUT and GASSULL) and wit the gold standard (k: 0.83; k: 0.64 CONUT; k: 0.89 GASSULL). However, structured tests (SGA, MNA, NRS) show low agreement indexes with the gold standard and laboratory or mixed tests (Gassull), although they show a low to intermediate level of agreement when compared one to each other (k: 0.489 NRS with SGA). INFORNUT shows sensitivity of 92.3%, a positive predictive value of 94.1%, and specificity of 91.2%. After the filer phase, a preliminary report is sent, on which anthropometrical and intake data are added and a Nutritional Risk Report is done. CONCLUSIONS Hyponutrition prevalence in our study (60%) is similar to that found by other authors. Hyponutrition is associated to increased mortality, hospital stay, and re-admission rate. There are no tools that have proven to be effective to show early hyponutrition at the hospital setting without important applicability limitations. FILNUT, as the first phase of the filter process of INFORNUT represents a valid tool: it has sensitivity and specificity for nutritional screening at admission. The main advantages of the process would be early detection of patients with risk for hyponutrition, having a teaching and sensitization function to health care staff implicating them in nutritional assessment of their patients, and doing a hyponutrition diagnosis and nutritional support need in the discharge report that would be registered by the Clinical Documentation Department. Therefore, INFORNUT would be a universal screening method with a good cost-effectiveness ratio.

International recommendations on the diagnosis and treatment of patients with acquired hemophilia A.

Acquired hemophilia A (AHA) is a rare bleeding disorder characterized by autoantibodies directed against circulating coagulation factor (F) VIII. Typically, patients with no prior history of a bleeding disorder present with spontaneous bleeding and an isolated prolonged aPTT. AHA may, however, present without any bleeding symptoms, therefore an isolated prolonged aPTT should always be investigated further irrespective of the clinical findings. Control of acute bleeding is the first priority, and we recommend first-line therapy with bypassing agents such as recombinant activated FVII or activated prothrombin complex concentrate. Once the diagnosis has been achieved, immediate autoantibody eradication to reduce subsequent bleeding risk should be performed. We recommend initial treatment with corticosteroids or combination therapy with corticosteroids and cyclophosphamide and suggest second-line therapy with rituximab if first-line therapy fails or is contraindicated. In contrast to congenital hemophilia, no comparative studies exist to support treatment recommendations for patients with AHA, therefore treatment guidance must rely on the expertise and clinical experience of specialists in the field. The aim of this document is to provide a set of international practice guidelines based on our collective clinical experience in treating patients with AHA and contribute to improved care for this patient group.