The design of probiotic studies to substantiate health claims

The EC Regulation No. 1924/2006 on Nutrition and Health claims made on foods has generated considerable debate and concern among scientists and industry. At the time of writing, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has not approved any probiotic claims despite numerous human trials and meta-analyses showing evidence of beneficial effects. On 29th and 30th September 2010, ten independent, academic scientists with a documented record in probiotic research, met to discuss designs for future probiotic studies to demonstrate health benefits for gut and immune function. The expert panel recommended the following: (i) always formulate a precise and concrete hypothesis, and appropriate goals and parameters before starting a trial; (ii) ensure trials have sufficient sample size, such that they are adequately powered to reach statistically significant conclusions, either supporting or rejecting the a priori hypothesis, taking into account adjustment for multiple testing (this might necessitate more than one recruitment site); (iii) ensure trials are of appropriate duration; (iv) focus on a single, primary objective and only evaluate multiple parameters when they are hypothesis-driven. The panel agreed that there was an urgent need to better define which biomarkers are considered valuable for substantiation of a health claim. As a first step, the panel welcomed the publication on the day of the meeting of EFSA's draft guidance document on immune and gut health, although it came too late for study designs and dossiers to be adjusted accordingly. New validated biomarkers need to be identified in order to properly determine the range of physiological functions influenced by probiotics. In addition, validated biomarkers reflecting risk factors for disease, are required for article 14 claims (EC Regulation No. 1924/2006). Finally, the panel concluded that consensus among scientists is needed to decide appropriate clinical endpoints for trials.

Communicating information about medication: the benefits of making it personal

Two experiments, using a controlled empirical methodology, investigated the effects of presenting information about medicines using a more personalised style of expression. In both studies, members of the general public were given a hypothetical scenario about visiting the doctor, being diagnosed with a particular illness, and being prescribed a medication. They were also given a written explanation about the medicine and were asked to provide ratings on a number of measures, including satisfaction, perceived risk to health, and intention to comply. In Experiment 1 the explanation focused only on possible side effects of the medicine, whereas in Experiment 2 a fuller explanation was provided, which included information about the illness, prescribed drug, its dosage and contraindications as well as its side effects. In both studies, use of a more personalised style resulted in significantly higher ratings of satisfaction and significantly lower ratings of likelihood of side effects occurring and of perceived risk to health. In Experiment 2 it also led to significantly improved recall for the written information.