Transforming Beef By-products into Valuable Ingredients: Which Spell/Recipe to Use?

Satisfying the increasing global demand for protein results in challenges from a supply perspective. Increased use of animal proteins, through greater use of meat by-products, could form part of the solution, subject to consumer acceptance. This research investigates consumer evaluations of food products that incorporate ingredients derived from offals that have been produced through a range of food processing technologies. Using focus groups incorporating product stimuli representing various combinations of offals, processing, and carrier products, the research finds that the physical state and perceived naturalness of the ingredients influences acceptance. It also highlights the impact of life experiences, linked to demographic characteristics, on interpretations and evaluations of products and processes. Ideational influences, i.e., knowledge of the nature or origin of the substance, are reasons for rejecting some concepts, with misalignment between nature of processing and the product resulting in rejection of others. Lack of perceived necessity also results in rejection. Alignment of ingredients with existing culinary practices and routines, communication of potential sensory, or other benefits as well as naturalness are factors likely to promote acceptance, and generate repeat purchase, in some consumer segments. Trust in oversight that the products are safe is a prerequisite for acceptance in all cases. These findings have implications for pathways to increase sustainability of beef production and consumption through increased use of beef by-products.

The effects of spinal cord stimulation in neuropathic pain are sustained: a 24-month follow-up of the prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial of the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation.

OBJECTIVE: After randomizing 100 failed back surgery syndrome patients to receive spinal cord stimulation (SCS) plus conventional medical management (CMM) or CMM alone, the results of the 6-month Prospective Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial of the Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation (i.e., PROCESS) showed that SCS offered superior pain relief, health-related quality of life, and functional capacity. Because the rate of crossover favoring SCS beyond 6 months would bias a long-term randomized group comparison, we present all outcomes in patients who continued SCS from randomization to 24 months and, for illustrative purposes, the primary outcome (>50% leg pain relief) per randomization and final treatment. METHODS: Patients provided data on pain, quality of life, function, pain medication use, treatment satisfaction, and employment status. Investigators documented adverse events. Data analysis included inferential comparisons and multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: The 42 patients continuing SCS (of 52 randomized to SCS) reported significantly improved leg pain relief (P < 0.0001), quality of life (P

Quality of life, resource consumption and costs of spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management in neuropathic pain patients with failed back surgery syndrome (PROCESS trial).

BACKGROUND: Chronic back and leg pain conditions result in patients' loss of function, reduced quality of life and increased costs to the society. AIMS: To assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost implications of spinal cord stimulation plus non-surgical conventional medical management (SCS group) versus non-surgical conventional medical management alone (CMM group) in the management of neuropathic pain in patients with failed back surgery syndrome. METHODS: A total of 100 patients were randomised to either the SCS or CMM group. Healthcare resource consumption data relating to screening, the use of the implantable generator in SCS patients, hospital stay, and drug and non-drug pain-related treatment were collected prospectively. Resource consumption was costed using UK and Canadian 2005-2006 national figures. HRQoL was assessed using the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Costs and outcomes were assessed for each patient over their first 6-months of the trial. RESULTS: The 6-month mean total healthcare cost in the SCS group (CAN$19,486; 12,653 euros) was significantly higher than in the CMM group (CAN$3994; 2594 euros), with a mean adjusted difference of CAN$15,395 (9997 euros) (p<0.001). However, the gain in HRQoL with SCS over the same period of time was markedly greater in the SCS group, with a mean EQ-5D score difference of 0.25 [p<0.001] and 0.21 [p<0.001], respectively at 3- and 6-months after adjusting for baseline variables. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of SCS to CMM in patients with neuropathic leg and back pain results in higher costs to health systems but also generates important improvements in patients' EQ-5D over the same period.

Spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management for neuropathic pain: a multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with failed back surgery syndrome.

Patients with neuropathic pain secondary to failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) typically experience persistent pain, disability, and reduced quality of life. We hypothesised that spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy in addition to conventional medical management (CMM) in this patient population. We randomised 100 FBSS patients with predominant leg pain of neuropathic radicular origin to receive spinal cord stimulation plus conventional medical management (SCS group) or conventional medical management alone (CMM group) for at least 6 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving 50% or more pain relief in the legs. Secondary outcomes were improvement in back and leg pain, health-related quality of life, functional capacity, use of pain medication and non-drug pain treatment, level of patient satisfaction, and incidence of complications and adverse effects. Crossover after the 6-months visit was permitted, and all patients were followed up to 1 year. In the intention-to-treat analysis at 6 months, 24 SCS patients (48%) and 4 CMM patients (9%) (p<0.001) achieved the primary outcome. Compared with the CMM group, the SCS group experienced improved leg and back pain relief, quality of life, and functional capacity, as well as greater treatment satisfaction (p

Spinal Cord Stimulation vs. Conventional Medical Management: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Study of Patients with Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (PROCESS Study).

Introduction. Since its first application in 1967, numerous case series indicate that spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment for the management of failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). However, only one randomized controlled trial has demonstrated that SCS provides more effective pain relief than re-operation and conventional medical management. The PROCESS randomized, controlled, multicenter trial aims to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SCS when added to conventional medical management compared to conventional medical management alone in patients with FBSS. Methods/Design. A total of 100 FBSS patients with predominantly neuropathic leg pain will be recruited from 12 centers and randomized to receive either conventional medical management alone or in combination with SCS for a period of 24 months. Patients will be evaluated at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months. At the 6-month visit, patients will be classified as successful (≥  50% pain relief in the legs) or unsuccessful (< 50% pain relief in the legs). If the results of the randomized treatment are unsuccessful, patients can cross over to the alternative treatment arm. Discussion. This paper highlights the rationale, design, methods, and challenges of an ongoing prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial that has been undertaken to obtain conclusive evidence of the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an SCS system in patients with FBSS.