Search

Funder: Wellcome Trust, Health is central to the development of any country. Nigeria’s gross domestic product is the largest in Africa, but its per capita income of about ₦770 000 (US$2000) is low with a highly inequitable distribution of income, wealth, and therefore, health. It is a picture of poverty amidst plenty. Nigeria is both a wealthy country and a very poor one. About 40% of Nigerians live in poverty, in social conditions that create ill health, and with the ever-present risk of catastrophic expenditures from high out-of-pocket spending for health. Even compared with countries of similar income levels in Africa, Nigeria’s population health outcomes are poor, with national statistics masking drastic differences between rich and poor, urban and rural populations, and different regions.

Background Poor diet and lack of physical activity are strongly linked to non-communicable disease risk, but modifying them is challenging. There is increasing recognition that adolescence is an important time to intervene; habits formed during this period tend to last, and physical and psychological changes during adolescence make it an important time to help individuals form healthier habits. Improving adolescents’ health behaviours is important not only for their own health now and in adulthood, but also for the health of any future children. Building on LifeLab—an existing, purpose-built educational facility at the University of Southampton—we have developed a multi-component intervention for secondary school students called Engaging Adolescents in Changing Behaviour (EACH-B) that aims to motivate and support adolescents to eat better and be more physically active. Methods A cluster randomised controlled trial is being conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the EACH-B intervention. The primary outcomes of the intervention are self-reported dietary quality and objectively measured physical activity (PA) levels, both assessed at baseline and at 12-month follow-up. The EACH-B intervention consists of three linked elements: professional development for teachers including training in communication skills to support health behaviour change; the LifeLab educational module comprising in-school teaching of nine science lessons linked to the English National Curriculum and a practical day visit to the LifeLab facility; and a personalised digital intervention that involves social support and game features that promote eating better and being more active. Both the taught module and the LifeLab day are designed with a focus on the science behind the messages about positive health behaviours, such as diet and PA, for the adolescents now, in adulthood and their future offspring, with the aim of promoting personal plans for change. The EACH-B research trial aims to recruit approximately 2300 secondary school students aged 12–13 years from 50 schools (the clusters) from Hampshire and neighbouring counties. Participating schools will be randomised to either the control or intervention arm. The intervention will be run during two academic years, with continual recruitment of schools throughout the school year until the sample size is reached. The schools allocated to the control arm will receive normal schooling but will be offered the intervention after data collection for the trial is complete. An economic model will be developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the EACH-B intervention compared with usual schooling. Discussion Adolescents’ health needs are often ignored and they can be difficult to engage in behaviour change. Building a cheap, sustainable way of engaging them in making healthier choices will benefit their long-term health and that of their future children. Trial registration ISRCTN 74109264. Registered on 30 August 2019. EACH-B is a cluster randomised controlled trial, funded by the National Institute for Health Research (RP-PG-0216-20004).

BackgroundThe EndoBarrier®(GI Dynamics Inc., Boston, MA, USA) is an endoluminal duodenal–jejunal bypass liner developed for the treatment of patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Meta-analyses of its effects on glycaemia and weight have called for larger randomised controlled trials with longer follow-up.ObjectivesThe primary objective was to compare intensive medical therapy with a duodenal–jejunal bypass liner with intensive medical therapy without a duodenal–jejunal bypass liner, comparing effectiveness on the metabolic state as defined by the International Diabetes Federation as a glycated haemoglobin level reduction of ≥ 20%. The secondary objectives were to compare intensive medical therapy with a duodenal–jejunal bypass liner with intensive medical therapy without a duodenal–jejunal bypass liner, comparing effectiveness on the metabolic state as defined by the International Diabetes Federation as a glycated haemoglobin level of DesignA multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.SettingImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust.ParticipantsPatients aged 18–65 years with a body mass index of 30–50 kg/m2and with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus who were on oral glucose-lowering medications.InterventionsParticipants were randomised equally to receive intensive medical therapy alongside a duodenal–jejunal bypass liner device (n = 85) or intensive medical therapy alone for 12 months (n = 85), and were followed up for a further 12 months.ResultsThere was no significant difference between groups in the percentage of patients achieving the glycaemic primary or secondary outcomes [primary outcome at 12 months: duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group 54.5% vs. control group 55.2% (odds ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.98;p = 0.85); primary outcome at 24 months: duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group 39.7% vs. control group 36.5% (odds ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 2.47;p = 0.75)]. Significantly more patients in the duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group than in the control group lost > 15% of their total body weight (duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group 24.2% vs. control group 3.7%; odds ratio 8.33, 95% confidence interval 1.78 to 39.0;p = 0.007) and achieved blood pressure targets (duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group 68.2% vs. control group 44.4%; odds ratio 2.57, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 5.48;p = 0.014). These differences were observed at 12 months but not at 24 months. There were more adverse events in the duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group, including one liver abscess. The increase in peripheral insulin sensitivity was superior in the duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group. Spectroscopic analyses of plasma, urine and faeces revealed several distinct metabolic perturbations in the duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group but not in the control group. Brain reward responses to food cues were not different between groups. The number of mean quality-adjusted life-years gained was similar in both groups and the additional costs of the duodenal–jejunal bypass liner may outweigh the value of the health benefits by £2560 per patient treated.ConclusionsThe results show that the endoluminal duodenal–jejunal bypass liner was not superior to intensive medical therapy for glycaemic control and was associated with more adverse events. The duodenal–jejunal bypass liner was associated with significant weight loss and improvement in cardiometabolic parameters at 12 months but not at 24 months. Economic evaluation showed that the bypass liner was not cost-effective for glycaemic control or for weight loss.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN30845205.FundingThis project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. This will be published in full inEfficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 7, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This study was executed with the support of GI Dynamics Inc. and with the kind support of Nutricia Advanced Medical Nutrition for providing oral nutritional supplements.