BackgroundWeight loss in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a common clinical manifestation that may have clinical significance.ObjectivesTo evaluate if there is a difference between nutrition education and oral nutritional supplementation on nutritional status in patients with AD.MethodsA randomized, prospective 6-month study which enrolled 90 subjects with probable AD aged 65 years or older divided into 3 groups: Control Group (CG) [n = 27], Education Group (EG) [n = 25], which participated in an education program and Supplementation Group (SG) [n = 26], which received two daily servings of oral nutritional supplementation. Subjects were assessed for anthropometric data (weight, height, BMI, TSF, AC and AMC), biochemical data (total protein, albumin, and total lymphocyte count), CDR (Clinical Dementia Rating), MMSE (Mini-mental state examination), as well as dependence during meals.ResultsThe SG showed a significant improvement in the following anthropometric measurements: weight (H calc = 22.12, p =< 0.001), BMI (H calc = 22.12, p =< 0.001), AC (H calc = 12.99, p =< 0.002), and AMC (H calc = 8.67, p =< 0.013) compared to the CG and EG. BMI of the EG was significantly greater compared to the CG. There were significant changes in total protein (H calc = 6.17, p =< 0.046), and total lymphocyte count in the SG compared to the other groups (H cal = 7.94, p = 0.019).ConclusionOral nutritional supplementation is more effective compared to nutrition education in improving nutritional status.

No abstract

No abstract

Letters to the Editor are considered for publication (subject to editing and abridgment), provided they are submitted in duplicate, are typewritten and triple-spaced, and do not exceed 400 words of text, a maximum of five references, and one figure or table. Letters should have no more than three authors, and all should sign the letter. Please include a word count, your telephone number, and your fax number (if available).Letters should not duplicate similar material being submitted or published elsewhere, and they should not contain abbreviations. Financial associations or other possible conflicts of interest should always be disclosed. Submission of a letter constitutes permission for the Massachusetts Medical Society, its licensees, and its assignees to use it in the Journal 's various editions (print, data base, and optical disk), in anthologies, revisions, and any other form or medium.Letters referring to a recent Journal article must be received within four weeks of the article's publication. To expedite receipt of such letters, we encourage authors outside the United States to communicate by fax (617-739-9864 or 617-734-4457).The Journal accepts letters to the Editor by electronic mail. The Internet address is letters@edit.nejm.org.We are unable to provide prepublication proofs, and unpublished material will not be returned to authors unless a stamped, self-addressed envelope is enclosed. Receipt of letters is not acknowledged, but correspondents will be notified when a decision is made. The New England Journal of Medicine Downloaded from nejm.org at STOCKHOLMS UNIVERSTITETSBIBL on August 11, 2015. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.

According to the WHO, 16-18 million people in Central and South America are infected by Trypanosoma cruzi. Chagasic achalasia affects between 7.1% and 10.6% of the population. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of Botox injections in the clinical response and esophageal function of patients with dysphagia due to chagasic achalasia. In total, 24 symptomatic patients with chagasic achalasia were randomly chosen to receive Botulinum Toxin (BT) or saline injected by endoscopy in the lower esophageal sphincter (LES). Patients were monitored with a clinical score of dysphagia and an objective assessment (esophagograms, scintillography, manometry, and nutritional assessment) for a period of 6 months. Clinical improvement of dysphagia was statistically significant (P < 0.001) in patients receiving BT when compared with the placebo. There was no significant difference in the placebo group regarding clinical score, LES basal pressure and esophageal emptying time. Esophageal emptying time in the toxin group was significantly lower than in the placebo (P=0.04) after 90 days. There were non-significant increases in esophageal emptying of 25.36% and 17.39%, respectively, at 90 and 180 days, in the BT group (P=0.266). Gender, age, and baseline LES pressure did not influence the response to BT. Our data strongly suggests that intrasphincteric injection of BT in LES is clinically effective in the treatment of chagasic achalasia.

In order to evaluate the role of the determination of adenosine deaminase activity (ADA) in ascitic fluid for the diagnosis of tuberculosis, 44 patients were studied. Based on biochemical, cytological, histopathological and microbiological tests, the patients were divided into 5 groups: G1-tuberculous ascites (n = 8); G2-malignant ascites (n = 13); G3-spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (n = 6); G4-pancreatic ascites (n = 2); G5-miscelaneous ascites (n = 15). ADA concentration were significantly higher in G1 (133.50 +/- 24.74 U/l) compared to the other groups (G2 = 41.85 +/- 52.07 U/l; G3 = 10.63 +/- 5.87 U/l; G4 = 18.00 +/- 7.07 U/l; G5 = 11.23 +/- 7.66 U/l). At a cut-off value of > 31 U/l, the sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values were 100%, 92%, 72% and 100%, respectively. ADA concentrations as high as in tuberculous ascites were only found in two malignant ascites caused by lymphoma. We conclude that ADA determination in ascitic fluid is a useful and reliable screening test for diagnosing tuberculous ascites. Values of ADA higher than 31 U/l indicate more invasive methods to confirm the diagnosis of tuberculosis.

Botulinum toxin (BT) has recently been indicated as an alternative treatment of idiopathic achalasia with a success rate of 60–70%. One‐third of BT‐treated cases either fail to respond or fail to sustain the response beyond 6 months. An explanation for BT therapeutic failure would be that the lower esophageal sphincter muscular layer (LES) may be missed as injection is delivered ‘blindly’. We aimed to evaluate the percentage of exact endoscopically ‘blind’ LES punctures using echoendoscopy after the injection of BT for the treatment of Chagas’ achalasia (CA). Five patients with CA (mean age 53 years) were randomized to receive 1.2 ml of BT or the same amount of saline injected endoscopically. Echoendoscopy was performed immediately after puncture. Patients were evaluated by the clinical score of dysphagia, radiological examination, upper endoscopy and esophageal manometry and followed up for 6 months. All puncture sites were identified: 17 out of 20 (85%) in the muscle layer and 3 out of 20 (15%) in the submucosa. The three patients in the treatment group showed clinical improvement (average clinical score fell from 14 to 2 after 7 days, and remained at 4 after 6 months of follow‐up). The mean pressure of the LES dropped by 29%. Neither patient in the placebo group showed clinical improvement, and the mean pressure of the LES increased by 35%. Endoscopic ‘blind’ injection of BT into the LES through endoscopy for the management of achalasia is a safe and reproducible technique and has a high percentage of exactness.

No abstract