A carbohydrate-reduced high-protein diet acutely decreases postprandial and diurnal glucose excursions in type 2 diabetes patients.

The aim of the study was to assess whether a simple substitution of carbohydrate in the conventionally recommended diet with protein and fat would result in a clinically meaningful reduction in postprandial hyperglycaemia in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In all, sixteen subjects with T2DM treated with metformin only, fourteen male, with a median age of 65 (43-70) years, HbA1c of 6·5 % (47 mmol/l) (5·5-8·3 % (37-67 mmol/l)) and a BMI of 30 (sd 4·4) kg/m2 participated in the randomised, cross-over study. A carbohydrate-reduced high-protein (CRHP) diet was compared with an iso-energetic conventional diabetes (CD) diet. Macronutrient contents of the CRHP/CD diets consisted of 31/54 % energy from carbohydrate, 29/16 % energy from protein and 40/30 % energy from fat, respectively. Each diet was consumed on 2 consecutive days in a randomised order. Postprandial glycaemia, pancreatic and gut hormones, as well as satiety, were evaluated at breakfast and lunch. Compared with the CD diet, the CRHP diet reduced postprandial AUC of glucose by 14 %, insulin by 22 % and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide by 17 % (all P<0·001), respectively. Correspondingly, glucagon AUC increased by 33 % (P<0·001), cholecystokinin by 24 % (P=0·004) and satiety scores by 7 % (P=0·035), respectively. A moderate reduction in carbohydrate with an increase in fat and protein in the diet, compared with an energy-matched CD diet, greatly reduced postprandial glucose excursions and resulted in increased satiety in patients with well-controlled T2DM.

Ability of different screening tools to predict positive effect on nutritional intervention among the elderly in primary health care.

OBJECTIVE: Routine identification of nutritional risk screening is paramount as the first stage in nutritional treatment of the elderly. The major focus of former validation studies of screening tools has been on the ability to predict undernutrition. The aim of this study was to validate Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA-SF), the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), Body Mass Index (BMI) <24, and the Eating Validation Scheme (EVS), using published randomized controlled trials of nutritional intervention among old people in primary health care, in order to evaluate whether they were capable of distinguishing those with a positive benefit from those that showed no benefit of nutritional intervention. METHODS: The methods used were a literature search; classification of participants with respect to nutritional risk according to the different nutritional screening tools; and validation (i.e., evaluation of whether the different tools were capable of distinguishing those with a positive benefit from those that showed no benefit of nutritional intervention by assessing the positive [PPV] and negative [NPV] predictive values). RESULTS: MNA-SF, NRS-2002, BMI <24 and EVS had the highest PPV (0.75) and EVS the highest NPV (0.74) with regard to function-the primary clinical outcome. CONCLUSION: Overall EVS seemed most capable of distinguishing those clients and residents with a positive benefit from those that showed no benefit of nutritional intervention. The findings should be confirmed in further validation and intervention studies.

Follow-up home visits with registered dietitians have a positive effect on the functional and nutritional status of geriatric medical patients after discharge: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the additional benefits of individualized nutritional counselling by a registered dietitian in geriatric patients' home after discharge from hospital, in relation to risk of re-admissions, functional status, nutritional status, use of social services and mortality. DESIGN: Twelve-week single-blind randomized controlled study. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Geriatric medical patients (65+ years) at nutritional risk. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly allocated to receive a visit in their homes, either three individualized nutritional counselling by a registered dietitian complemented with three follow-up visits by general practitioners or three follow-up visits by general practitioners alone. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome was risk of re-admissions. Secondary outcomes were functional status (hand grip strength, chair stand, mobility, disability and tiredness in daily activities, rehabilitation capacity), nutritional status (weight, BMI, energy and protein intake), need of social services (home care, home nursing, meals-on-wheels) and mortality. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-two patients were included; 132 (87%) completed the first and 124 (82%) the second data collection after 12 weeks. Ten per cent of the participants had three contacts with their general practitioner, while compliance with the dietetic intervention was almost 100%. Odds ratio for re-admission and mortality after 26 weeks was 1.62 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 3.10) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.17 to 2.13). The intervention had a positive effect on functional status (i.e. mobility, P = 0.029), and nutritional status (i.e. weight, P = 0.035; energy intake, P < 0.001; protein intake, P = 0.001) and the use of meals-on wheels was reduced (P = 0.084). CONCLUSION: Follow-up home visits with registered dietitians have a positive effect on the functional and nutritional status of geriatric medical patients after discharge.

Study protocol: follow-up home visits with nutrition: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Geriatric patients are at high risk of re-admission after discharge. Pre-existing nutritional risk amongst these patients is of primary concern, with former nutritional intervention studies being largely ineffective. None of these studies has included individual dietary counselling by a registered dietician or has considered competing medical conditions in the participants. A former randomised study has shown that comprehensive discharge follow-up in geriatric patients homes by general practitioners and district nurses was effective in reducing the re-admission risk in the intervention group compared to the control group. That study did not include a nutritional intervention. The purpose of this study is to assess the combined benefits of an intervention consisting of discharge follow-up in geriatric patients' home by a general practitioner and a registered dietician. METHODS/DESIGN: This single-blind randomised controlled study, will recruit 160 hospitalised geriatric medical patients (65+ y) at nutritional risk. Participants will be randomly allocated to receive in their homes, either 12 weeks individualised nutritional counselling by a registered dietician complemented with follow-up by general practitioners or a 12 weeks follow-up by general practitioners alone. DISCUSSION: This trial is the first of its kind to provide individual nutritional intervention combined with follow-up by general practitioner as an intervention to reduce risk of re-admission after discharge among geriatric medical patients. The results will hopefully help to guide the development of more effective rehabilitation programs following hospital admissions, which may ultimately lead to reduced health care costs, and improvement in mobility, independence and quality of life for geriatric patients at nutritional risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov 2010 NCT01249716.