An engineering model of the human colon

The development and performance of a three-stage tubular model of the large human intestine is outlined. Each stage comprises a membrane fermenter where flow of an aqueous polyethylene glycol solution on the outside of the tubular membrane is used to control the removal of water and metabolites (principally short chain fatty acids) from, and thus the pH of, the flowing contents on the fermenter side. The three stage system gave a fair representation of conditions in the human gut. Numbers of the main bacterial groups were consistently higher than in an existing three-chemostat gut model system, suggesting the advantages of the new design in providing an environment for bacterial growth to represent the actual colonic microflora. Concentrations of short chain fatty acids and Ph levels throughout the system were similar to those associated with corresponding sections of the human colon. The model was able to achieve considerable water transfer across the membrane, although the values were not as high as those in the colon. The model thus goes some way towards a realistic simulation of the colon, although it makes no pretence to simulate the pulsating nature of the real flow. The flow conditions in each section are characterized by low Reynolds numbers: mixing due to Taylor dispersion is significant, and the implications of Taylor mixing and biofilm development for the stability, that is the ability to operate without washout, of the system are briefly analysed and discussed. It is concluded that both phenomena are important for stabilizing the model and the human colon.

Symposium on 'nutrition interventions in high-risk groups' - CVD risk in South Asians: the importance of defining adiposity and influence of dietary polyunsaturated fat

The prevalence of the metabolic syndrome (MetS), CVD and type 2 diabetes (T2D) is known to be higher in populations from the Indian subcontinent compared with the general UK population. While identification of this increased risk is crucial to allow for effective treatment, there is controversy over the applicability of diagnostic criteria, and particularly measures of adiposity in ethnic minorities. Diagnostic cut-offs for BMI and waist circumference have been largely derived from predominantly white Caucasian populations and, therefore, have been inappropriate and not transferable to Asian groups. Many Asian populations, particularly South Asians, have a higher total and central adiposity for a similar body weight compared with matched Caucasians and greater CVD risk associated with a lower BMI. Although the causes of CVD and T2D are multi-factorial, diet is thought to make a substantial contribution to the development of these diseases. Low dietary intakes and tissue levels of long-chain (LC) n-3 PUFA in South Asian populations have been linked to high-risk abnormalities in the MetS. Conversely, increasing the dietary intake of LC n-3 PUFA in South Asians has proved an effective strategy for correcting such abnormalities as dyslipidaemia in the MetS. Appropriate diagnostic criteria that include a modified definition of adiposity must be in place to facilitate the early detection and thus targeted treatment of increased risk in ethnic minorities.

rRNA probes used to quantify the effects of glycomacropeptide and alpha-lactalbumin supplementation on the predominant groups of intestinal bacteria of infant rhesus monkeys challenged with enteropathogenic Escherichia coli

Objectives: Certain milk factors may help to promote the growth of a host-friendly colonic microflora (e.g. bifidobacteria, lactobacilli) and explain why breast-fed infants experience fewer and milder intestinal infections than those who are formula-fed. The effects of supplementation of formula with two such milk factors was investigated in this study. Materials and Methods: Infant rhesus macaques were breastfed, fed control formula, or formula supplemented with glycomacropeptide (GMP) or alpha-lactalburnin (alpha-LA) from birth to 5 months of age. Blood was drawn monthly and rectal swabs were collected weekly. At 4.5 months of age, 10(8) colonyforming units of enteropathogenic E.coli O127, strain 2349/68 (EPEC) was given orally and the response to infection assessed. The bacteriology of rectal swabs pre- and post-infection was determined by culture independent fluorescence in situ hybridization. Results: Post-challenge, breast-fed infants and infants fed alpha-LA-supplemented formula had no diarrhea, whilst those infants fed GMP-supplemented formula had intermittent diarrhea. In infants fed control formula the diarrhea was acute. Conclusions: Supplementation of infant formula with appropriate milk proteins may be useful for improving the infant's ability to resist acute infection caused by E.coli.

Cost-benefit evaluation of routine influenza immunisation in people 65-74 years of age

OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination in people aged 65-74 years in the absence of co-morbidity. DESIGN: Primary research: randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: People without risk factors for influenza or contraindications to vaccination were identified from 20 general practitioner (GP) practices in Liverpool in September 1999 and invited to participate in the study. There were 5875/9727 (60.4%) people aged 65-74 years identified as potentially eligible and, of these, 729 (12%) were randomised. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to receive either influenza vaccine or placebo (ratio 3:1), with all individuals receiving pneumococcal vaccine unless administered in the previous 10 years. Of the 729 people randomised, 552 received vaccine and 177 received placebo; 726 individuals were administered pneumococcal vaccine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND METHODOLOGY OF ECONOMIC EVALUATION: GP attendance with influenza-like illness (ILI) or pneumonia (primary outcome measure); or any respiratory symptoms; hospitalisation with a respiratory illness; death; participant self-reported ILI; quality of life (QoL) measures at 2, 4 and 6 months post-study vaccination; adverse reactions 3 days after vaccination. A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken to identify the incremental cost associated with the avoidance of episodes of influenza in the vaccination population and an impact model was used to extrapolate the cost-effectiveness results obtained from the trial to assess their generalisability throughout the NHS. RESULTS: In England and Wales, weekly consultations for influenza and ILI remained at baseline levels (less than 50 per 100,000 population) until week 50/1999 and then increased rapidly, peaking during week 2/2000 with a rate of 231/100,000. This rate fell within the range of 'higher than expected seasonal activity' of 200-400/100,000. Rates then quickly declined, returning to baseline levels by week 5/2000. The predominant circulating strain during this period was influenza A (H3N2). Five (0.9%) people in the vaccine group were diagnosed by their GP with an ILI compared to two (1.1%) in the placebo group [relative risk (RR), 0.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.16 to 4.1]. No participants were diagnosed with pneumonia by their GP and there were no hospitalisations for respiratory illness in either group. Significantly fewer vaccinated individuals self-reported a single ILI (4.6% vs 8.9%, RR, 0.51; 95% CI for RR, 0.28 to 0.96). There was no significant difference in any of the QoL measurements over time between the two groups. Reported systemic side-effects showed no significant differences between groups. Local side-effects occurred with a significantly increased incidence in the vaccine group (11.3% vs 5.1%, p = 0.02). Each GP consultation avoided by vaccination was estimated from trial data to generate a net NHS cost of 174 pounds. CONCLUSIONS: No difference was seen between groups for the primary outcome measure, although the trial was underpowered to demonstrate a true difference. Vaccination had no significant effect on any of the QoL measures used, although vaccinated individuals were less likely to self-report ILI. The analysis did not suggest that influenza vaccination in healthy people aged 65-74 years would lead to lower NHS costs. Future research should look at ways to maximise vaccine uptake in people at greatest risk from influenza and also the level of vaccine protection afforded to people from different age and socio-economic populations.

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.

A novel experimental method for measuring vergence and accommodation responses to the main near visual cues in typical and atypical groups

Binocular disparity, blur, and proximal cues drive convergence and accommodation. Disparity is considered to be the main vergence cue and blur the main accommodation cue. We have developed a remote haploscopic photorefractor to measure simultaneous vergence and accommodation objectively in a wide range of participants of all ages while fixating targets at between 0.3 and 2 m. By separating the three main near cues, we can explore their relative weighting in three-, two-, one-, and zero-cue conditions. Disparity can be manipulated by remote occlusion; blur cues manipulated by using either a Gabor patch or a detailed picture target; looming cues by either scaling or not scaling target size with distance. In normal orthophoric, emmetropic, symptom-free, naive visually mature participants, disparity was by far the most significant cue to both vergence and accommodation. Accommodation responses dropped dramatically if disparity was not available. Blur only had a clinically significant effect when disparity was absent. Proximity had very little effect. There was considerable interparticipant variation. We predict that relative weighting of near cue use is likely to vary between clinical groups and present some individual cases as examples. We are using this naturalistic tool to research strabismus, vergence and accommodation development, and emmetropization.

Borg's rating of perceived exertion scales: do the verbal anchors mean the same for different clinical groups?

Objective: To examine the interpretation of the verbal anchors used in the Borg rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scales in different clinical groups and a healthy control group. Design: Prospective experimental study. Setting: Rehabilitation center. Participants: Nineteen subjects with brain injury, 16 with chronic low back pain (CLBP), and 20 healthy controls. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Subjects used a visual analog scale (VAS) to rate their interpretation of the verbal anchors from the Borg RPE 6-20 and the newer 10-point category ratio scale. Results: All groups placed the verbal anchors in the order that they occur on the scales. There were significant within-group differences (P > .05) between VAS scores for 4 verbal anchors in the control group, 8 in the CLBP group, and 2 in the brain injury group. There was no significant difference in rating of each verbal anchor between the groups (P > .05). Conclusions: All subjects rated the verbal anchors in the order they occur on the scales, but there was less agreement in rating of each verbal anchor among subjects in the brain injury group. Clinicians should consider the possibility of small discrepancies in the meaning of the verbal anchors to subjects, particularly those recovering from brain injury, when they evaluate exercise perceptions.

Expressing medicine side effects: assessing the effectiveness of absolute risk, relative risk, and number needed to harm, and the provision of baseline risk information

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of absolute risk, relative risk, and number needed to harm formats for medicine side effects, with and without the provision of baseline risk information. Methods: A two factor, risk increase format (relative, absolute and NNH) x baseline (present/absent) between participants design was used. A sample of 268 women was given a scenario about increase in side effect risk with third generation oral contraceptives, and were required to answer written questions to assess their understanding, satisfaction, and likelihood of continuing to take the drug. Results: Provision of baseline information significantly improved risk estimates and increased satisfaction, although the estimates were still considerably higher than the actual risk. No differences between presentation formats were observed when baseline information was presented. Without baseline information, absolute risk led to the most accurate performance. Conclusion: The findings support the importance of informing people about baseline level of risk when describing risk increases. In contrast, they offer no support for using number needed to harm. Practice implications: Health professionals should provide baseline risk information when presenting information about risk increases or decreases. More research is needed before numbers needed to harm (or treat) should be given to members of the general populations. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Interpretation of recommended risk terms: differences between doctors and lay people

Objectives: To examine doctors' (Experiment 1) and doctors' and lay people's (Experiment 2) interpretations of two sets of recommended verbal labels for conveying information about side effects incidence rates. Method: Both studies used a controlled empirical methodology in which participants were presented with a hypothetical, but realistic, scenario involving a prescribed medication that was said to be associated with either mild or severe side effects. The probability of each side effect was described using one of the five descriptors advocated by the European Union (Experiment 1) or one of the six descriptors advocated in Calman's risk scale (Experiment 2), and study participants were required to estimate (numerically) the probability of each side effect occurring. Key findings: Experiment 1 showed that the doctors significantly overestimated the risk of side effects occurring when interpreting the five EU descriptors, compared with the assigned probability ranges. Experiment 2 showed that both groups significantly overestimated risk when given the six Calman descriptors, although the degree of overestimation was not as great for the doctors as for the lay people. Conclusion: On the basis of our findings, we argue that we are still a long way from achieving a standardised language of risk for use by both professionals and the general public, although there might be more potential for use of standardised terms among professionals. In the meantime, the EU and other regulatory bodies and health professionals should be very cautious about advocating the use of particular verbal labels for describing medication side effects.

Interpreting information about medication side effects: differences in risk perception and intention to comply when medicines are prescribed for adults or young children

This study investigates whether, and how, people's perception of risk and intended health behaviours are affected by whether a medicine is prescribed for themselves or for a young child. The question is relevant to the issue of whether it is beneficial to produce medicines information that is tailored to particular subgroups of the population, such as parents of young children. In the experiment, participants read scenarios which referred either to themselves or their (imagined) 1-year-old child, and were required to make a number of risk judgements. The results showed that both parents and non-parents were less satisfied, perceived side effects to be more severe and more likely to occur, risk to health to be higher, and said that they would be less likely to take (or give) the medicine when the recipient was the child. On the basis of the findings, it is suggested that it may well be beneficial to tailor materials to broader classes of patient type.

Perceptions of the risks and benefits of medicines in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other painful musculoskeletal conditions

Objectives. To examine beliefs about medication risks and benefits in patients attending a specialist rheumatology clinic for pain-related conditions. Methods. Eighty-one patients (37 first attendees and 44 existing clinic patients) completed a written questionnaire which asked about current treatments, perceived effectiveness, main risks and benefits, and compliance. Results. Existing clinic patients perceived medications to be more effective and more risky than did the new patients, although both groups rated risks to be moderately low. The main perceived risks were adverse side-effects, although patients reported only moderately low levels of experiencing such effects. Conclusions. In contrast to some other studies, many of our patients were aware of medication risks and were prepared to accept them provided benefits were seen to be high. Existing clinic patients were more aware of risks and benefits, and reported higher compliance levels than new patients, possibly as a result of the hospital education programme. Future studies should evaluate the effects of the programme more systematically.