Search

Eating a varied diet is a central tenet of good nutrition. Here, we develop a molecular tool to quantify human dietary plant diversity by applying DNA metabarcoding with the chloroplast trnL- P6 marker to 1,029 fecal samples from 324 participants across two interventional feeding studies and three observational cohorts. The number of plant taxa per sample (plant metabarcoding richness or pMR) correlated with recorded intakes in interventional diets and with indices calculated from a food frequency questionnaire in typical diets (ρ = 0.40 to 0.63). In adolescents unable to collect validated dietary survey data, trnL metabarcoding detected 111 plant taxa, with 86 consumed by more than one individual and four (wheat, chocolate, corn, and potato family) consumed by >70% of individuals. Adolescent pMR was associated with age and household income, replicating prior epidemiologic findings. Overall, trnL metabarcoding promises an objective and accurate measure of the number and types of plants consumed that is applicable to diverse human populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and knee are among the most common chronic conditions, resulting in substantial pain and functional limitations. Adequate management of OA requires a combination of medical and behavioral strategies. However, some recommended therapies are under-utilized in clinical settings, and the majority of patients with hip and knee OA are overweight and physically inactive. Consequently, interventions at the provider-level and patient-level both have potential for improving outcomes. This manuscript describes two ongoing randomized clinical trials being conducted in two different health care systems, examining patient-based and provider-based interventions for managing hip and knee OA in primary care. Methods / Design One study is being conducted within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system and will compare a Combined Patient and Provider intervention relative to usual care among n = 300 patients (10 from each of 30 primary care providers). Another study is being conducted within the Duke Primary Care Research Consortium and will compare Patient Only, Provider Only, and Combined (Patient + Provider) interventions relative to usual care among n = 560 patients across 10 clinics. Participants in these studies have clinical and / or radiographic evidence of hip or knee osteoarthritis, are overweight, and do not meet current physical activity guidelines. The 12-month, telephone-based patient intervention focuses on physical activity, weight management, and cognitive behavioral pain management. The provider intervention involves provision of patient-specific recommendations for care (e.g., referral to physical therapy, knee brace, joint injection), based on evidence-based guidelines. Outcomes are collected at baseline, 6-months, and 12-months. The primary outcome is the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (self-reported pain, stiffness, and function), and secondary outcomes are the Short Physical Performance Test Protocol (objective physical function) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (depressive symptoms). Cost effectiveness of the interventions will also be assessed. Discussion Results of these two studies will further our understanding of the most effective strategies for improving hip and knee OA outcomes in primary care settings. Trial registration NCT01130740 (VA); NCT 01435109 (NIH)

There is currently a lack of consensus as to what defines exercise and resistance training in the cancer setting and whether current studies comply with exercise guidelines. This study aimed to quantify the available research studies using resistance training exercise interventions in the breast cancer setting for future clinical trial utilization. We systemically reviewed all available resistance exercise studies during and after breast cancer treatment in an attempt to quantify to the prescribed dose and whether regimens aligned with general exercise guidelines to improve functional mobility, body composition, and metabolic function. They were then compared with recommendations set forth by the national committees that create evidence-based exercise guidelines. Fifty studies met the initial criteria, with 35 meeting analysis criteria for evaluation. Fifteen studies evaluated an exercise regimen during cancer treatment, and 20 evaluated a regimen after treatment. The average adherence rates were 84% for all studies. Only 23 studies listed specific exercises used within the protocol. Most exercise regimens relied on open chain movements and machine exercises. Around half of studies met criteria to achieve hypertrophy, and 66% met American College of Sports Medicine exercise guidelines for cancer patients. A minority of breast cancer studies implementing a resistance training exercise regimen prescribed a regimen or specific dose that follows general exercise guidelines. This study highlights a potential deficiency in exercise programs designed for patients with breast cancer, and these findings should be considered in future study design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Low-carbohydrate diets have been advocated as an effective method for promoting weight loss in overweight and obese individuals and preventing and treating type 2 diabetes. This article reviews the differences between various low-carbohydrate eating plans and discusses the benefits and drawbacks of such a diet based on available evidence. It also offers practical pointers for clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a 2019 Consensus Report on individualizing medical nutrition therapy (MNT) for diabetic or prediabetic adults. Topics discussed include the effectiveness of MNT in improving outcomes, macronutrient eating plans for diabetics, the evidence for specific eating patterns in managing diabetes, and the role of weight loss therapy for managing obese diabetics. Also noted is the impact of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) on diabetes risk.

Aim: To examine whether a low‐carbohydrate, high‐unsaturated/low‐saturated fat diet (LC) improves glycaemic control and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods: A total of 115 adults with T2D (mean [SD]; BMI, 34.6 [4.3] kg/m2; age, 58 [7] years; HbA1c, 7.3 [1.1]%) were randomized to 1 of 2 planned energy‐matched, hypocaloric diets combined with aerobic/resistance exercise (1 hour, 3 days/week) for 2 years: LC: 14% energy as carbohydrate, 28% as protein, 58% as fat (<10% saturated fat); or low‐fat, high‐carbohydrate, low‐glycaemic index diet (HC): 53% as CHO, 17% as protein, 30% as fat (<10% saturated fat). HbA1c, glycaemic variability (GV), anti‐glycaemic medication effect score (MES, calculated based on the potency and dosage of diabetes medication), weight, body composition, CVD and renal risk markers were assessed before and after intervention. Results: A total of 61 (LC = 33, HC = 28) participants completed the study (trial registration: http://www.anzctr.org.au/, ANZCTR No. ACTRN12612000369820). Reductions in weight (estimated marginal mean [95% CI]; LC, −6.8 [−8.8,−4.7], HC, −6.6 [−8.8, −4.5] kg), body fat (LC, −4.3 [−6.2, −2.4], HC, −4.6 [−6.6, −2.7] kg), blood pressure (LC, −2.0 [−5.9, 1.8]/ −1.2 [−3.6, 1.2], HC, −3.2 [−7.3, 0.9]/ −2.0 [−4.5, 0.5] mmHg), HbA1c (LC, −0.6 [−0.9, −0.3], HC, −0.9 [−1.2, −0.5] %) and fasting glucose (LC, 0.3 [−0.4, 1.0], HC, −0.4 [−1.1, 0.4] mmol/L) were similar between groups (P ≥ 0.09). Compared to HC, the LC achieved greater reductions in diabetes medication use (MES; LC, −0.5 [−0.6, −0.3], HC, −0.2 [−0.4, −0.02] units; P = 0.03), GV (Continuous Overall Net Glycemic Action calculated every 1 hour (LC, −0.4 [−0.6, −0.3], HC, −0.1 [−0.1, 0.2] mmol/L; P = 0.001), and 4 hours (LC, −0.9 [−1.3, −0.6], HC, −0.2 [−0.6, 0.1] mmol/L; P = 0.02)); triglycerides (LC, −0.1 [−0.3, 0.2], HC, 0.1 [−0.2, 0.3] mmol/L; P = 0.001), and maintained HDL‐C levels (LC, 0.02 [−0.05, 0.1], HC, −0.1 [−0.1, 0.01] mmol/L; P = 0.004), but had similar changes in LDL‐C (LC, 0.2 [−0.1, 0.5], HC, 0.1 [−0.2, 0.4] mmol/L; P = 0.85), brachial artery flow mediated dilatation (LC, −0.5 [−1.5, 0.5], HC, −0.4 [−1.4, 0.7] %; P = 0.73), eGFR and albuminuria. Conclusions: Both diets achieved comparable weight loss and HbA1c reductions. The LC sustained greater reductions in diabetes medication requirements, and in improvements in diurnal blood glucose stability and blood lipid profile, with no adverse renal effects, suggesting greater optimization of T2D management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Weight regain after successful weight loss interventions is common. Objective: To establish the efficacy of a weight loss maintenance program compared with usual care in obese adults. Design: 2-group, parallel, randomized trial stratified by initial weight loss (<10 kg vs. ≥10 kg), conducted from 20 August 2012 to 18 December 2015. Outcome assessors were blinded to treatment assignment. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01357551) Setting: 3 primary care clinics at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Durham and Raleigh, North Carolina. Patients: Obese outpatients (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2) who lost 4 kg or more of body weight during a 16-week, group-based weight loss program. Intervention: The maintenance intervention, delivered primarily by telephone, addressed satisfaction with outcomes, relapse-prevention planning, self-monitoring, and social support. Usual care involved no contact except for study measurements. Measurements: Primary outcome was mean weight regain at week 56. Secondary outcomes included self-reported caloric intake, walking, and moderate physical activity. Results: Of 504 patients in the initial program, 222 lost at least 4 kg of body weight and were randomly assigned to maintenance (n = 110) or usual care (n = 112). Retention was 85%. Most patients were middle-aged white men. Mean weight loss during initiation was 7.2 kg (SD, 3.1); mean weight at randomization was 103.6 kg (SD, 20.4). Estimated mean weight regain was statistically significantly lower in the intervention (0.75 kg) than the usual care (2.36 kg) group (estimated mean difference, 1.60 kg [95% CI, 0.07 to 3.13 kg]; P = 0.040). No statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes were seen at 56 weeks. No adverse events directly attributable to the intervention were observed. Limitations: Results may not generalize to other settings or populations. Dietary intake and physical activity were self-reported. Duration was limited to 56 weeks. Conclusion: An intervention focused on maintenance-specific strategies and delivered in a resource-conserving way modestly slowed the rate of weight regain in obese adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A single-site study showed that a combined patient and provider intervention improved outcomes for patients with knee osteoarthritis, but it did not assess separate effects of the interventions. Objective: To examine whether patient-based, provider-based, and patient–provider interventions improve osteoarthritis outcomes. Design: Cluster randomized trial with assignment to patient, provider, and patient–provider interventions or usual care. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01435109) Setting: 10 Duke University Health System community-based primary care clinics. Participants: 537 outpatients with symptomatic hip or knee osteoarthritis. Intervention: The telephone-based patient intervention focused on weight management, physical activity, and cognitive behavioral pain management. The provider intervention involved electronic delivery of patient-specific osteoarthritis treatment recommendations to providers. Measurements: The primary outcome was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were objective physical function (Short Physical Performance Battery) and depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire). Linear mixed models assessed the difference in improvement among groups. Results: No difference was observed in WOMAC score changes from baseline to 12 months in the patient (−1.5 [95% CI, −5.1 to 2.0]; P = 0.40), provider (2.5 [CI, −0.9 to 5.9]; P = 0.152), or patient–provider (−0.7 [CI, −4.2 to 2.8]; P = 0.69) intervention groups compared with usual care. All groups had improvements in WOMAC scores at 12 months (range, −3.7 to −7.7). In addition, no differences were seen in objective physical function or depressive symptoms at 12 months in any of the intervention groups compared with usual care. Limitations: The study involved 1 health care network. Data on provider referrals were not collected. Conclusion: Contrary to a previous study of a combined patient and provider intervention for osteoarthritis in a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center, this study found no statistically significant improvements in the osteoarthritis intervention groups compared with usual care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Management of osteoarthritis requires both medical and behavioral strategies, but some recommended therapies are underused.Objective: To examine the effectiveness of a combined patient and provider intervention for improving osteoarthritis outcomes.Design: Cluster randomized clinical trial with assignment to osteoarthritis intervention and usual care groups. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01130740).Setting: Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina.Participants: 30 providers (clusters) and 300 outpatients with symptomatic hip or knee osteoarthritis.Intervention: The telephone-based patient intervention focused on weight management, physical activity, and cognitive behavioral pain management. The provider intervention involved delivery of patient-specific osteoarthritis treatment recommendations to primary care providers through the electronic medical record.Measurements: The primary outcome was total score on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were WOMAC function and pain subscale scores, physical performance (Short Physical Performance Battery), and depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-8). Linear mixed models that were adjusted for clustering of providers assessed between-group differences in improvement in outcomes.Results: At 12 months, WOMAC scores were 4.1 points lower (indicating improvement) in the osteoarthritis intervention group versus usual care (95% CI, -7.2 to -1.1 points; P = 0.009). WOMAC function subscale scores were 3.3 points lower in the intervention group (CI, -5.7 to -1.0 points; P = 0.005). WOMAC pain subscale scores (P = 0.126), physical performance, and depressive symptoms did not differ between groups. Although more patients in the osteoarthritis intervention group received provider referral for recommended osteoarthritis treatments, the numbers who received them did not differ.Limitation: The study was conducted in a single Veterans Affairs medical center.Conclusion: The combined patient and provider intervention resulted in modest improvement in self-reported physical function in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis.Primary Funding Source: Department of Veterans Affairs, Health Services Research and Development Service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Few well-controlled studies have comprehensively examined the effects of very-low-carbohydrate diets on type 2 diabetes (T2D). Objective: We compared the effects of a very-low-carbohydrate, high-unsaturated fat, low-saturated fat (LC) diet with a highcarbohydrate, low-fat (HC) diet on glycemic control and cardiovascular disease risk factors in T2D after 52 wk. Design: In this randomized controlled trial that was conducted in an outpatient research clinic, 115 obese adults with T2D [mean 6 SD age: 58 6 7 y; body mass index (in kg/m2): 34.6 6 4.3; glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c): 7.3 6 1.1%; duration of diabetes: 8 6 6 y] were randomly assigned to consume either a hypocaloric LC diet [14% of energy as carbohydrate (carbohydrate ,50 g/d), 28% of energy as protein, and 58% of energy as fat (,10% saturated fat)] or an energymatched HC diet [53% of energy as carbohydrate, 17% of energy as protein, and 30% of energy as fat (,10% saturated fat)] combined with supervised aerobic and resistance exercise (60 min; 3 d/wk). Outcomes were glycemic control assessed with use of measurements of HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, glycemic variability assessed with use of 48-h continuous glucose monitoring, diabetes medication, weight, blood pressure, and lipids assessed at baseline, 24, and 52 wk. Results: Both groups achieved similar completion rates (LC diet: 71%; HC diet: 65%) and mean (95% CI) reductions in weight [LC diet: 29.8 kg (211.7, 27.9 kg); HC diet: 210.1 kg (212.0, 28.2 kg)], blood pressure [LC diet: 27.1 (210.6, 23.7)/26.2 (28.2, 24.1) mm Hg; HC diet:25.8 (29.4,22.2)/26.4 (28.4,24.3) mm Hg], HbA1c [LC diet: 21.0% (21.2%, 20.7%); HC diet: 21.0% (21.3%, 20.8%)], fasting glucose [LC diet: 20.7 mmol/L (21.3, 20.1 mmol/L); HC diet: 21.5 mmol/L (22.1, 20.8 mmol/L)], and LDL cholesterol [LC diet: 20.1 mmol/L (20.3, 0.1 mmol/L); HC diet: 20.2 mmol/L (20.4, 0.03 mmol/L)] (P-diet effect $ 0.10). Compared with the HC-diet group, the LC-diet group achieved greater mean (95% CI) reductions in the diabetes medication score [LC diet: 20.5 arbitrary units (20.7, 20.4 arbitrary units); HC diet: 20.2 arbitrary units (20.4, 20.06 arbitrary units); P = 0.02], glycemic variability assessed by measuring the continuous overall net glycemic action-1 [LC diet: 20.5 mmol/L (20.6, 20.3 mmol/L); HC diet: 20.05 mmol/L (20.2, 20.1 mmol/L); P = 0.003], and triglycerides [LC diet: 20.4 mmol/L (20.5, 20.2 mmol/L); HC diet: 20.01 mmol/L (20.2, 0.2 mmol/L); P = 0.001] and greater mean (95% CI) increases in HDL cholesterol [LC diet: 0.1 mmol/L (0.1, 0.2 mmol/L); HC diet: 0.06 mmol/L (20.01, 0.1 mmol/L); P = 0.002]. Conclusions: Both diets achieved substantial weight loss and reduced HbA1c and fasting glucose. The LC diet, which was high in unsaturated fat and low in saturated fat, achieved greater improvements in the lipid profile, blood glucose stability, and reductions in diabetes medication requirements, suggesting an effective strategy for the optimization of T2D management. This trial was registered at www.anzctr.org.au as ACTRN12612000369820. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]