Standard gastroenterologist versus multidisciplinary treatment for functional gastrointestinal disorders (MANTRA): an open-label, single-centre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Functional gastrointestinal disorders are common and costly to the health-care system. Most specialist care is provided by a gastroenterologist, but only a minority of patients have improvement in symptoms. Although they have proven to be effective, psychological, behavioural, and dietary therapies are not provided routinely. We aimed to compare the outcome of gastroenterologist-only standard care with multidisciplinary care. METHODS: In an open-label, single-centre, pragmatic trial, consecutive new referrals of eligible patients aged 18-80 years with Rome IV criteria-defined functional gastrointestinal disorders were randomly assigned (1:2) to receive gastroenterologist-only standard care or multidisciplinary clinic care. The multidisciplinary clinic included gastroenterologists, dietitians, gut-focused hypnotherapists, psychiatrists, and behavioural (biofeedback) physiotherapists. Randomisation was stratified by Rome IV disorder and whether referred from gastroenterology or colorectal clinic. Outcomes were assessed at clinic discharge or 9 months after the initial visit. The primary outcome was a score of 4 (slightly better) or 5 (much better) on a 5-point Likert scale assessing global symptom improvement. Modified intention-to-treat analysis included all patients who attended at least one clinic visit and who had answered the primary outcome question. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03078634. FINDINGS: Between March 16, 2017, and May 10, 2018, 1632 patients referred to the hospital gastrointestinal clinics were screened, of whom 442 were eligible for a screening telephone call and 188 were randomly assigned to receive either standard care (n=65) or multidisciplinary care (n=123). 144 patients formed the modified intention-to-treat analysis (n=46 in the standard-care group and n=98 in the multidisciplinary-care group), 90 (63%) of whom were women. 61 (62%) of 98 patients in the multidisciplinary-care group patients saw allied clinicians. 26 (57%) patients in the standard-care group and 82 (84%) patients in the multidisciplinary-care group had global symptom improvement (risk ratio 1·50 [95% CI 1·13-1·93]; p=0·00045). 29 (63%) patients in the standard-care group and 81 (83%) patients in the multidisciplinary-care group had adequate relief of symptoms in the past 7 days (p=0·010). Patients in the multidisciplinary-care group were more likely to experience a 50% or higher reduction in all Gastrointestinal Symptom Severity Index symptom clusters than were patients in the standard-care group. Of the patients with irritable bowel syndrome, a 50-point or higher reduction in IBS-SSS occurred in 10 (38%) of 26 patients in the standard care group compared with 39 (66%) of 59 patients in the multidisciplinary-care group (p=0·017). Of the patients with functional dyspepsia, a 50% reduction in the Nepean Dyspepsia Index was noted in three (11%) of 11 patients in the standard-care group and in 13 (46%) of 28 in the multidisciplinary-care group (p=0·47). After treatment, the median HADS scores were higher in the standard-care group than in the multidisciplinary-care group (13 [8-20] vs 10 [6-16]; p=0·096) and the median EQ-5D-5L quality of life visual analogue scale was lower in the standard-care group compared with the multidisciplinary-care group (70 [IQR 50-80] vs 75 [65-85]; p=0·0087). The eight SF-36 scales did not differ between the groups at discharge. After treatment, median Somatic Symptom Scale-8 score was higher in the standard-care group than in the multidisciplinary-care group (10 [IQR 7-7] vs 9 [5-13]; p=0·082). Cost per successful outcome was higher in the standard-care group than the multidisciplinary-care group. INTERPRETATION: Integrated multidisciplinary clinical care appears to be superior to gastroenterologist-only care in relation to symptoms, specific functional disorders, psychological state, quality of life, and cost of care for the treatment of functional gastrointestinal disorders. Consideration should be given to providing multidisciplinary care for patients with a functional gastrointestinal disorder. FUNDING: None.

Effects of food supplementation on cognitive function, cerebral blood flow, and nutritional status in young children at risk of undernutrition: randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of food supplementation on improving working memory and additional measures including cerebral blood flow in children at risk of undernutrition. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: 10 villages in Guinea-Bissau. PARTICIPANTS: 1059 children aged 15 months to 7 years; children younger than 4 were the primary population. INTERVENTIONS: Supervised isocaloric servings (≈1300 kJ, five mornings each week, 23 weeks) of a new food supplement (NEWSUP, high in plant polyphenols and omega 3 fatty acids, within a wide variety and high fortification of micronutrients, and a high protein content), or a fortified blended food (FBF) used in nutrition programs, or a control meal (traditional rice breakfast). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was working memory, a core executive function predicting long term academic achievement. Additional outcomes were hemoglobin concentration, growth, body composition, and index of cerebral blood flow (CBFi). In addition to an intention-to-treat analysis, a predefined per protocol analysis was conducted in children who consumed at least 75% of the supplement (820/925, 89%). The primary outcome was assessed by a multivariable Poisson model; other outcomes were assessed by multivariable linear mixed models. RESULTS: Among children younger than 4, randomization to NEWSUP increased working memory compared with the control meal (rate ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.41, P=0.03), with a larger effect in the per protocol population (1.25, 1.06 to 1.47, P=0.009). NEWSUP also increased hemoglobin concentration among children with anemia (adjusted mean difference 0.65 g/dL, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 1.07, P=0.003) compared with the control meal, decreased body mass index z score gain (-0.23, -0.43 to -0.02, P=0.03), and increased lean tissue accretion (2.98 cm2, 0.04 to 5.92, P=0.046) with less fat (-5.82 cm2, -11.28 to -0.36, P=0.04) compared with FBF. Additionally, NEWSUP increased CBFi compared with the control meal and FBF in both age groups combined (1.14 mm2/s×10-8, 0.10 to 2.23, P=0.04 for both comparisons). Among children aged 4 and older, NEWSUP had no significant effect on working memory or anemia, but increased lean tissue compared with FBF (4.31 cm2, 0.34 to 8.28, P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Childhood undernutrition is associated with long term impairment in cognition. Contrary to current understanding, supplementary feeding for 23 weeks could improve executive function, brain health, and nutritional status in vulnerable young children living in low income countries. Further research is needed to optimize nutritional prescriptions for regenerative improvements in cognitive function, and to test effectiveness in other vulnerable groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03017209.

Berberine versus placebo for the prevention of recurrence of colorectal adenoma: a multicentre, double-blinded, randomised controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Chemoprevention of colorectal adenoma and colorectal cancer remains an important public health goal. The present study aimed to investigate the clinical potential and safety of berberine for prevention of colorectal adenoma recurrence. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial was done in seven hospital centres across six provinces in China. Individuals aged 18-75 years who had at least one but no more than six histologically confirmed colorectal adenomas that had undergone complete polypectomy within the 6 months before recruitment were recruited and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive berberine (0·3 g twice daily) or placebo tablets via block randomisation (block size of six). Participants were to undergo a first follow-up colonoscopy 1 year after enrolment, and if no colorectal adenomas were detected, a second follow-up colonoscopy at 2 years was planned. The study continued until the last enrolled participant reached the 2-year follow-up point. All participants, investigators, endoscopists, and pathologists were blinded to treatment assignment. The primary efficacy endpoint was the recurrence of adenomas at any follow-up colonoscopy. Analysis was based on modified intention-to-treat, with the full analysis set including all randomised participants who received at least one dose of study medication and who had available efficacy data. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02226185; the trial has ended and this report represents the final analysis. FINDINGS: Between Nov 14, 2014, and Dec 30, 2016, 553 participants were randomly assigned to the berberine group and 555 to the placebo group. The full analysis set consisted of 429 participants in the berberine group and 462 in the placebo group. 155 (36%) participants in the berberine group and 216 (47%) in the placebo group were found to have recurrent adenoma during follow-up (unadjusted relative risk ratio for recurrence 0·77, 95% CI 0·66-0·91; p=0·001). No colorectal cancers were detected during follow-up. The most common adverse event was constipation (six [1%] of 446 patients in the berberine group vs one [<0·5%] of 478 in the placebo group). No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: Berberine 0·3 g twice daily was safe and effective in reducing the risk of recurrence of colorectal adenoma and could be an option for chemoprevention after polypectomy. FUNDING: National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Acupuncture for patients with mild hypertension: A randomized controlled trial.

Acupuncture may be beneficial for patients with mild hypertension, but the evidence is not convincing. We aimed to examine the effect of acupuncture on blood pressure (BP) reduction in patients with mild hypertension. We conducted a multicenter, single-blind, sham-controlled, randomized trial in eleven hospitals in China. The trial included 428 patients with systolic blood pressure (SBP) from 140 to 159 mm Hg and/or with diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from 90 to 99 mm Hg. The patients were randomly assigned to receive 18 sessions of affected meridian acupuncture (n = 107) or non-affected meridian acupuncture (n = 107) or sham acupuncture (n = 107) during 6 weeks, or to stay in a waiting-list control (n = 107). All patients received 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring at weeks 6, 9, and 12. We included 415 participants in the intention-to-treat analysis. The two acupuncture groups were pooled in the analysis, since they had no difference in all outcomes. SBP decreased at week 6 in acupuncture group vs sham acupuncture vs waiting-list group (7.2 ± 11.0 mm Hg vs 4.1 ± 11.5 mm Hg vs 4.1 ± 13.2 mm Hg); acupuncture was not superior to sham acupuncture (mean difference 2.7 mm Hg, 95% CI 0.4 to 5.9, adjusted P = 0.103) or waiting-list control (2.9 mm Hg, 95% CI -0.2 to 6.0, adjusted P = 0.078). However, acupuncture was superior to sham acupuncture (3.3 mm Hg, 95% CI 0.2 to 6.3, adjusted P = 0.035) and waiting-list control (4.8 mm Hg, 95% CI 1.8 to 7.8, P < 0.001) at week 9. Acupuncture had a small effect size on the reduction of BP in patients with mild hypertension.

Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: intention-to-treat, treatment adherence, and missing participant outcome data in the nutrition literature.

Among clinical trials of adequate size, randomization balances both known and unknown prognostic factors between trial arms, thus allowing an unbiased comparison of intervention and control. To preserve this benefit, all randomly assigned participants should be followed to study termination and analyzed in the arm to which they were allocated. There are 2 potential limitations in study implementation: 1) patients are nonadherent and continue with follow-up visits, or 2) patients are lost to follow-up and their outcome data are missing. Herein, we address these issues with an emphasis on binary outcomes, and discuss how authors of randomized trials should address issues of both noncompliance and missing data.