Nutrigenetics and CVD: what does the future hold?

CVD is a common killer in both the Western world and the developing world. It is a multifactorial disease that is influenced by many environmental and genetic factors. Although public health advice to date has been principally in the form of prescribed population-based recommendations, this approach has been surprisingly unsuccessful in reducing CVD risk. This outcome may be explained, in part, by the extreme variability in response to dietary manipulations between individuals and interactions between diet and an individual's genetic background, which are defined by the term 'nutrigenetics'. The shift towards personalised nutritional advice is a very attractive proposition. In principle an individual could be genotyped and given dietary advice specifically tailored to their genetic make-up. Evidence-based research into interactions between fixed genetic variants, nutrient intake and biomarkers of CVD risk is increasing, but still limited. The present paper will review the evidence for interactions between dietary fat and three common polymorphisms in the apoE, apoAI and PPAR gamma genes. Increased knowledge of how these and other genes influence dietary response should increase the understanding of personalised nutrition. While targeted dietary advice may have considerable potential for reducing CVD risk, the ethical issues associated with its routine use need careful consideration.

What neuroimaging and perceptions of self-other similarity can tell us about the mechanism underlying mentalizing

Carruthers' "mindreading is prior" model postulates one unitary mindreading mechanism working identically for self and other. While we agree about shared mindreading mechanisms, there is also evidence from neuroimaging and mentalizing about dissimilar others that suggest factors that differentially affect self-versus-other mentalizing. Such dissociations suggest greater complexity than the mindreading is prior model allows.

Comparison of two methods of presenting risk information to patients about the side effects of medicines

Objective: To determine whether the use of verbal descriptors suggested by the European Union (EU) such as "common" (1-10% frequency) and "rare" (0.01-0.1%) effectively conveys the level of risk of side effects to people taking a medicine. Design: Randomised controlled study with unconcealed allocation. Participants: 120 adults taking simvastatin or atorvastatin after cardiac surgery or myocardial infarction. Setting: Cardiac rehabilitation clinics at two hospitals in Leeds, UK. Intervention: A written statement about one of the side effects of the medicine (either constipation or pancreatitis). Within each side effect condition half the patients were given the information in verbal form and half in numerical form (for constipation, "common" or 2.5%; for pancreatitis, "rare" or 0.04%). Main outcome measure: The estimated likelihood of the side effect occurring. Other outcome measures related to the perceived severity of the side effect, its risk to health, and its effect on decisions about whether to take the medicine. Results: The mean likelihood estimate given for the constipation side effect was 34.2% in the verbal group and 8.1% in the numerical group; for pancreatitis it was 18% in the verbal group and 2.1% in the numerical group. The verbal descriptors were associated with more negative perceptions of the medicine than their equivalent numerical descriptors. Conclusions: Patients want and need understandable information about medicines and their risks and benefits. This is essential if they are to become partners in medicine taking. The use of verbal descriptors to improve the level of information about side effect risk leads to overestimation of the level of harm and may lead patients to make inappropriate decisions about whether or not they take the medicine.

Informing people about the risks and benefits of medicines: implications for the safe and effective use of medicinal products

Providing effective information about drug risks and benefits has become a major challenge for health professionals, as many people are ill equipped to understand, retain and use the information effectively. This paper reviews the growing evidence that people’s understanding (and health behaviour) is not only affected by the content of medicines information, but also by the particular way in which it is presented. Such presentational factors include whether information is presented verbally or numerically, framed positively or negatively, whether risk reductions are described in relative or absolute terms (and baseline information included), and whether information is personalized or tailored in any way. It also looks at how understanding is affected by the order in which information is presented, and the way in which it is processed. The paper concludes by making a number of recommendations for providers of medicines information, about both the content and presentation of such information, that should enhance safe and effective medicines usage.