Adherence to Dietary Guidelines in Adults by Diabetes Status: Results From the 2012 Mexican National Health and Nutrition Survey.

The aims of the present study were to compare the adherence to dietary guidelines and evaluate potential differences in nutrient profiles among adults by diabetes status. We used the Mexican Alternate Healthy Eating Index (MxAHEI) to evaluate adherence to dietary guidelines. We calculated the MxAHEI scores (total and by dietary component) with scales from 0 (non-adherence) to 100 (perfect adherence) based on a food frequency questionnaire. Mean daily intakes of macronutrients and micronutrients (g, mg, mcg/1000 kcal per day) were also estimated by diabetes status. Sex-specific, multivariable linear regression models were estimated to test whether MxAHEI scores as well as nutrient intakes were different by diabetes status. Mexican adults had low adherence to the dietary guidelines irrespective of their diabetes status (score < 50 points). Among men, the MxAHEI score was 2.6 points higher among those with diabetes than those without diabetes (46.9; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 44.6, 49.2 vs. 44.3; 95% CI: 44.2, 45.6, respectively). Among women, the total MxAHEI score was similar in individuals with diabetes compared to those without diabetes. Lower intakes of carbohydrates and added sugars and higher intakes of protein, calcium, and zinc were observed in individuals with diabetes. Our findings support the development of strategies focused on promoting dietary patterns that can help to prevent and control the disease.

Malnutrition-sarcopenia syndrome: is this the future of nutrition screening and assessment for older adults?

Malnutrition is common across varying patient populations, particularly older adults, and sarcopenia prevalence increases with advancing age. Both malnutrition and sarcopenia are associated with substantial adverse outcomes affecting both the patient and the healthcare system, including increased morbidity, mortality, rehospitalization rates, and healthcare costs. Healthcare practitioners may assess patients for either malnutrition or sarcopenia; however, many patients clinically present with both conditions, resulting in the syndrome, Malnutrition-Sarcopenia Syndrome, which is the clinical presentation of both malnutrition and accelerated age-associated loss of lean body mass, strength, and/or functionality. Clinicians are urged to screen, assess, and treat these conditions currently so as to adequately address the full spectrum of patients' nutritional issues. By examining aspects of both conditions, clinicians can more fully assess their patients' clinical and nutritional status and can tailor targeted therapies to meet their needs and improve outcomes. This proposed syndrome embodies the inherent association of malnutrition and sarcopenia, highlighting their combined impact on clinical outcomes. The objective of this review paper is to characterize Malnutrition-Sarcopenia Syndrome to advance clinical practice, by providing clinicians with the necessary background information to integrate nutritional assessment along with loss of muscle mass and functionality in their everyday clinical practice.

A diabetes-specific enteral formula improves glycemic variability in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Well-controlled studies have demonstrated that inpatient hyperglycemia is an indicator of poor clinical outcomes, but the use of diabetes-specific enteral formulas in hospitalized patients remains a topic of great debate. METHODS: In two different protocols, postprandial glycemia and insulinemia were measured in 22 subjects with diabetes fed a diabetes-specific or standard formula (protocol 1). Continuous glucose monitoring was used to assess glucose levels in 12 enterally fed patients with diabetes receiving the standard formula followed by the diabetes-specific formula continuously for 5 days each (protocol 2). End points included postprandial glycemia and insulinemia, glycemic variability (mean amplitude of glycemic excursions [MAGE]), mean glucose, and insulin use. RESULTS: In the postprandial response protocol, the diabetes-specific formula resulted in lower positive areas under the postprandial curve (P < 0.001) and peak glucose (P < 0.001) and insulin (P = 0.017) levels. In the protocol using continuous glucose monitoring, glycemic variability (as measured by MAGE) was lower with continuous administration of the diabetes-specific than the standard formula (64.6 +/- 6.8 mg/dL vs. 110.6 +/-15.3 mg/dL, P = 0.003). Also, administration of the diabetes-specific formula resulted in lower mean glucose concentrations during feeding (171.1 +/- 16.1 vs. 202.1 +/- 17.4 mg/dL, P = 0.024) and insulin requirements (7.8 +/- 2.3 vs. 10.9 +/- 3.3 units/day, P = 0.039) than the standard formula. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to the standard formula, the diabetes-specific formula reduced postprandial glycemia, mean glucose, glycemic variability, and short-acting insulin requirements. These results suggest potential clinical usefulness of a diabetes-specific enteral formula for minimizing glycemic excursions in hospitalized patients.