Participating in a fruit and vegetable intervention trial improves longer term fruit and vegetable consumption and barriers to fruit and vegetable consumption: a follow-up of the ADIT study

BACKGROUND: Fruit and vegetable (FV) based intervention studies can be effective in increasing short term FV consumption. However, the longer term efficacy of such interventions is still unclear. The aim of the current study was to examine the maintenance of change in FV consumption 18-months after cessation of a FV intervention and to examine the effect of participating in a FV intervention on barriers to FV consumption.

METHODS: A follow-up of a randomised controlled FV trial in 83 older adults (habitually consuming ≤2 portions/day) was conducted. At baseline, participants were assigned to continue consuming ≤2 portions FV/day or consume ≥5 portions FV/day for 16-weeks. We assessed FV intake and barriers to FV consumption at baseline, end of intervention and 18-months post-intervention.

RESULTS: At 18-months, mean FV intakes in both groups were greater than baseline. The 5 portions/day group continued to show greater increases in FV consumption at 18-months than the 2 portions/day group (p < 0.01). At 18-months, both groups reported greater liking (p < 0.01) and ease in consuming FV (p = 0.001) while difficulties with consuming FV decreased (p < 0.001). The 2 portions/day group reported greater awareness of FV recommendations at 18-months (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Participating in a FV intervention can lead to longer-term positive changes in FV consumption regardless of original group allocation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov NCT00858728 .

Development of a Novel Assay for the Detection of Active Neutrophil Elastase in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Neutrophil elastase (NE), a biomarker of infection and inflammation, correlates with the severity of several respiratory diseases including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, it’s detection and quantification in biological samples is confounded by a lack of reliable and robust methodologies. Standard assays using chromogenic or fluorogenic substrates are not specific when added to complex clinical samples containing multiple proteolytic and hydrolytic enzymes which have the ability to hydrolyse the substrate, thereby resulting in an over-estimation of the target protease. Furthermore, ELISA systems measure total protease levels which can be a mixture of latent, active and protease-inhibitor complexes. Therefore, we have developed a novel immunoassay (ProteaseTag™ Active NE Immunoassay) which is selective and specific for the capture of active NE in sputum and Bronchoalveolar Lavage (BAL) in patients with COPD. The objective of this study was to clinically validate ProteaseTag™ Active NE Ultra Immunoassay for the detection of NE in sputum from COPD patients. 20 matched sputum sol samples were collected from 10 COPD patients (M=6, F=4; 73 ± 6 years) during stable and exacerbation phases. Samples were assayed for NE activity utilising both ProteaseTag™ Active NE Ultra Immunoassay and a fluorogenic substrate-based kinetic activity assay. Both assays detected elevated levels of NE in the majority of patients (n=7) during an exacerbation (mean=217.2 μg/ml ±296.6) compared to their stable phase (mean=92.37 μg/ml ±259.8). However, statistical analysis did not show this difference to be significant (p=0.07, ProteaseTag™ Active NE Ultra Immunoassay; p=0.06 kinetic assay), most likely due to the low study number. A highly significant correlation was found between the 2 assay types (p≤0.0001, r=0.996). NE as a primary efficacy endpoint in clinical trials or as a marker of inflammation within the clinic has been hampered by the lack of a robust and simple to use assay. ProteaseTag™ Active NE Immunoassay specifically measures only active NE in clinical samples, is quick and easy to use (< 3 hours) and has no dependency on a kinetic readout. ProteaseTag™ technology is currently being transferred to a lateral flow device for use at Point of Care.

Psychosocial interventions to improve quality of life and emotional wellbeing for recently diagnosed cancer patients

BACKGROUND:
A cancer diagnosis may lead to significant psychological distress in up to 75% of cases. There is a lack of clarity about the most effective ways to address this psychological distress.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions to improve quality of life (QoL) and general psychological distress in the 12-month phase following an initial cancer diagnosis.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO up to January 2011. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of included studies. Electronic searches were carried out across all primary sources of peer-reviewed publications using detailed criteria. No language restrictions were imposed.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
Randomised controlled trials of psychosocial interventions involving interpersonal dialogue between a 'trained helper' and individual newly diagnosed cancer patients were selected. Only trials measuring QoL and general psychological distress were included. Trials involving a combination of pharmacological therapy and interpersonal dialogue were excluded, as were trials involving couples, family members or group formats.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Trial data were examined and selected by two authors in pairs with mediation from a third author where required. Where possible, outcome data were extracted for combining in a meta-analyses. Continuous outcomes were compared using standardised mean differences and 95% confidence intervals, using a random-effects model. The primary outcome, QoL, was examined in subgroups by outcome measurement, cancer site, theoretical basis for intervention, mode of delivery and discipline of trained helper. The secondary outcome, general psychological distress (including anxiety and depression), was examined according to specified outcome measures.
MAIN RESULTS:
A total of 3309 records were identified, examined and the trials subjected to selection criteria; 30 trials were included in the review. No significant effects were observed for QoL at 6-month follow up (in 9 studies, SMD 0.11; 95% CI -0.00 to 0.22); however, a small improvement in QoL was observed when QoL was measured using cancer-specific measures (in 6 studies, SMD 0.16; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.30). General psychological distress as assessed by 'mood measures' improved also (in 8 studies, SMD - 0.81; 95% CI -1.44 to - 0.18), but no significant effect was observed when measures of depression or anxiety were used to assess distress (in 6 studies, depression SMD 0.12; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.31; in 4 studies, anxiety SMD 0.05; 95% CI -0.13 to 0.22). Psychoeducational and nurse-delivered interventions that were administered face to face and by telephone with breast cancer patients produced small positive significant effects on QoL (in 2 studies, SMD 0.23; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.43).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
The significant variation that was observed across participants, mode of delivery, discipline of 'trained helper' and intervention content makes it difficult to arrive at a firm conclusion regarding the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for cancer patients. It can be tentatively concluded that nurse-delivered interventions comprising information combined with supportive attention may have a beneficial impact on mood in an undifferentiated population of newly diagnosed cancer patients.