Background: A chronic low-grade infammatory profle (CLIP) is associated with sarcopenia in older adults. Protein and Vitamin (Vit)D have immune-modulatory potential, but evidence for efects of nutritional supplementation on CLIP is limited. Aim To investigate whether 13 weeks of nutritional supplementation of VitD and leucine-enriched whey protein afected CLIP in subjects enrolled in the PROVIDE-study, as a secondary analysis. Methods: Sarcopenic adults (low skeletal muscle mass) aged ≥ 65 years with mobility limitations (Short Physical Performance Battery 4–9) and a body mass index of 20–30 kg/m2 were randomly allocated to two daily servings of active (n=137, including 20 g of whey protein, 3 g of leucine and 800 IU VitD) or isocaloric control product (n=151) for a double-blind period of 13 weeks. At baseline and after 13 weeks, circulating interleukin (IL)-8, IL-1 receptor antagonist (RA), soluble tumor-necrosis-factor receptor (sTNFR)1, IL-6, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, pre-albumin and 25-hydroxyvitamin(OH) D were measured. Data-analysis included repeated measures analysis of covariance (corrected for dietary VitD intake) and linear regression. Results: IL-6 and IL-1Ra serum levels showed overall increases after 13 weeks (p=0.006 and p<0.001, respectively). For IL-6 a signifcant time × treatment interaction (p=0.046) was observed, with no signifcant change over time in the active group (p=0.155) compared to control (signifcant increase p=0.012). IL-8 showed an overall signifcant decrease (p=0.03). The change in pre-albumin was a signifcant predictor for changes in IL-6 after 13 weeks. Conclusions: We conclude that 13 weeks of nutritional supplementation with VitD and leucine-enriched whey protein may attenuate the progression of CLIP in older sarcopenic persons with mobility limitations
Background. One of the stakeholders in tackling the rise and health consequences of overweight and obesity is the general practice physician (GP). GPs are in a good position to inform and give nutrition guidance to overweight patients. Objective. Assessment of working mechanism of determinants of the nutrition guidance practice: noticing patients’ overweight and guidance of treatment by GPs [linear analysis of structural relations (LISREL) path model] in a longitudinal study. Methods. This longitudinal study measured data in 1992, 1997 and 2007. The 1992 LISREL path model (Hiddink GJ, Hautvast J, vanWoerkumCMJ, Fieren CJ, vantHofMA. Nutrition guidance by primary-care physicians: LISREL analysis improves understanding. Prev Med 1997; 26: 29–36.) demonstrated that ‘noticing patients’ overweight and guidance of treatment’ was directly and indirectly influenced by predisposing factors, driving forces and perceived barriers. This article defines and discusses the path analysis of the 2007 data (compared with 1997). Results. This analysis shows both similarity and differences inworking mechanism of determinants of noticing patients’ overweight and guidance of treatment between 1997 and 2007. The backbone of themechanism with four predisposing factors is the similarity. The number of driving forces and of paths through intermediary factors to the dependent variable constitutes the difference. Conclusions. The backbone of the working mechanism of determinants of the nutrition guidance practice: noticing patients’ overweight and guidance of treatment by GPs was similar in 2007 and 1997. The influence of GPs task perception on noticing patients’ overweight and guidance of treatment considerably increased in 2007 compared to 1997. The longitudinal character of this article gives a strong practice-based evidence for weight management by GPs.
BACKGROUND: Combining increased dietary protein intake and resistance exercise training for elderly people is a promising strategy to prevent or counteract the loss of muscle mass and decrease the risk of disabilities. Using findings from controlled interventions in a real-life setting requires adaptations to the intervention and working procedures of healthcare professionals (HCPs). The aim of this study is to adapt an efficacious intervention for elderly people to a real-life setting (phase one) and test the feasibility and potential impact of this prototype intervention in practice in a pilot study (phase two).METHODS: The Intervention Mapping approach was used to guide the adaptation in phase one. Qualitative data were collected from the original researchers, target group, and HCPs, and information was used to decide whether and how specified intervention elements needed to be adapted. In phase two, a one-group pre-test post-test pilot study was conducted (n = 25 community-dwelling elderly), to elicit further improvements to the prototype intervention. The evaluation included participant questionnaires and measurements at baseline (T0) and follow-up (T1), registration forms, interviews, and focus group discussions (T1). Qualitative data for both phases were analysed using an inductive approach. Outcome measures included physical functioning, strength, body composition, and dietary intake. Change in outcomes was assessed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.RESULTS: The most important adaptations to the original intervention were the design of HCP training and extending the original protein supplementation with a broader nutrition programme aimed at increasing protein intake, facilitated by a dietician. Although the prototype intervention was appreciated by participants and professionals, and perceived applicable for implementation, the pilot study process evaluation resulted in further adaptations, mostly concerning recruitment, training session guidance, and the nutrition programme. Pilot study outcome measures showed significant improvements in muscle strength and functioning, but no change in lean body mass.CONCLUSION: The combined nutrition and exercise intervention was successfully adapted to the real-life setting and seems to have included the most important effective intervention elements. After adaptation of the intervention using insights from the pilot study, a larger, controlled trial should be conducted to assess cost-effectiveness.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov NL51834.081.14 (April 22, 2015).
