Extra-Virgin Olive Oil Enhances the Blood-Brain Barrier Function in Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early Alzheimer's disease (AD) are characterized by blood-brain barrier (BBB) breakdown leading to abnormal BBB permeability ahead of brain atrophy or dementia. Previous findings in AD mouse models have reported the beneficial effect of extra-virgin olive oil (EVOO) against AD, which improved BBB and memory functions and reduced brain amyloid-ß (Aß) and related pathology. This work aimed to translate these preclinical findings to humans in individuals with MCI. We examined the effect of daily consumption of refined olive oil (ROO) and EVOO for 6 months in MCI subjects on BBB permeability (assessed by contrast-enhanced MRI), and brain function (assessed using functional-MRI) as the primary outcomes. Cognitive function and AD blood biomarkers were also assessed as the secondary outcomes. Twenty-six participants with MCI were randomized with 25 participants completed the study. EVOO significantly improved clinical dementia rating (CDR) and behavioral scores. EVOO also reduced BBB permeability and enhanced functional connectivity. While ROO consumption did not alter BBB permeability or brain connectivity, it improved CDR scores and increased functional brain activation to a memory task in cortical regions involved in perception and cognition. Moreover, EVOO and ROO significantly reduced blood Aß42/Aß40 and p-tau/t-tau ratios, suggesting that both altered the processing and clearance of Aß. In conclusion, EVOO and ROO improved CDR and behavioral scores; only EVOO enhanced brain connectivity and reduced BBB permeability, suggesting EVOO biophenols contributed to such an effect. This proof-of-concept study justifies further clinical trials to assess olive oil's protective effects against AD and its potential role in preventing MCI conversion to AD and related dementias.

Impact of interdisciplinary education on pharmacy student knowledge and comfort with counseling on drug-nutrient interactions.

INTRODUCTION: Drug-nutrient interactions (DNIs) can negatively impact the medication use process and cause patient harm. Education in basic nutrition is often not included within pharmacy school curricula despite pharmacists needing to be proficient in identifying sources of potentially interacting nutrients. We evaluated the impact of an online education module about common DNIs and their sources on fourth-year student pharmacist knowledge, comfort with counseling, and perceived importance of DNIs. METHODS: Fourth-year pharmacy students participating in their first community pharmacy advanced pharmacy practice experience (APPE) were incentivized to view an educational module developed by pharmacists and a dietitian. Pre- and post-assessments were given to determine the impact of the module on knowledge, comfort with counseling, and perceived importance of DNIs. An end-of-rotation assessment was administered to examine the use of module information during the APPE. Pre- and post-assessment responses were compared utilizing paired t-test analyses. RESULTS: The pre- and post-module assessment results demonstrated statistically significant increases in knowledge, comfort, and perceived importance. Baseline knowledge scores increased from 65% to 80% and comfort increased for all included medication classes, most notably for bisphosphonates, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor blockers. Perception of DNI importance increased across all classes. Students reported identifying DNIs at least weekly during the five-week APPE. CONCLUSIONS: An educational module about DNIs increased student knowledge, comfort with counseling, and perceived importance in fourth-year pharmacy students. Students reported encountering DNIs weekly during a community pharmacy rotation and found the module information useful.

Comparison of 3 risk factor-based screening tools for the identification of prediabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare risk factor-based screening tools for identifying prediabetes. METHODS: Participants in an employer-based wellness program were tested for glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) at a regularly scheduled appointment, and prediabetes risk factor information was collected. The likelihood of having prediabetes and the need for laboratory testing were determined based on 3 risk factor-based screening tools: the Prediabetes Screening Test (PST), Prediabetes Risk Test (PRT), and 2016 American Diabetes Association guidelines (ADA2016). The results from the screening tools were compared with those of the A1C test. The predictive ability of the PST, PRT, and ADA2016 were compared using logistic regression. Results were validated with data from a secondary population. RESULTS: Of the 3 risk factor-based tools examined, the PRT demonstrated the best combination of sensitivity and specificity for identifying prediabetes. From July 2016 to March 2017, 740 beneficiaries of an employer-sponsored wellness program had their A1C tested and provided risk factor information. The population prevalence of prediabetes was 9.3%. Analysis of a second independent population with a prediabetes prevalence of more than 50% of confirmed PRT's superiority despite differences in the calculated sensitivity and specificity for each population. CONCLUSION: Because PRT predicts prediabetes better than PST or ADA2016, it should be used preferentially.