Metabolomics application for the design of an optimal diet.

Precision nutrition is an emerging branch of nutrition science that aims to use modern omics technologies (genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics) to assess an individual's response to specific foods or dietary patterns and thereby determine the most effective diet or lifestyle interventions to prevent or treat specific diseases. Metabolomics is vital to nearly every aspect of precision nutrition. It can be targeted or untargeted, and it has many applications. Indeed, it can be used to comprehensively characterize the thousands of chemicals in foods, identify food by-products in human biofluids or tissues, characterize nutrient deficiencies or excesses, monitor biochemical responses to dietary interventions, track long- or short-term dietary habits, and guide the development of nutritional therapies. Indeed, metabolomics can be coupled with genomics and proteomics to study and advance the field of precision nutrition. Integrating omics with epidemiological and clinical data will begin to define the beneficial effects of human food metabolites. In this review, we present the metabolome and its relationship to precision nutrition. Moreover, we describe the different techniques used in metabolomics and present how metabolomics has been applied to advance the field of precision nutrition by providing notable examples and cases.

Impact of whole-body CT screening on the cost-effectiveness of CT colonography.

PURPOSE: To analyze the impact of adding computed tomographic (CT) imaging of the chest on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CT colonography to determine whether performing CT colonography and whole-body CT is a more clinically and cost-effective strategy than CT colonography alone when screening average-risk subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model simulated the occurrence of colorectal neoplasia, extracolonic abominal-pelvic malignancy, lung cancer, coronary artery disease (CAD), and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in a cohort of 100,000 U.S. subjects aged 50 to 100 years. Cost-effectiveness of CT colonography and whole-body CT was compared with that of CT colonography alone; each test was assumed to be repeated every 10 years between ages of 50 and 80 years. RESULTS: Performing CT colonography and whole-body CT was more effective and costly than was CT colonography alone. The addition of chest CT was associated with a 22% increase in efficacy (life-years gained: 14,662 vs 11,990) and with a 48% increase in cost per person ($13,605 vs $9,223). Both strategies were cost effective as compared with no screening, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $17,672 (CT colonography alone) and $44,337 (CT colonography and whole-body CT), respectively, but performing CT colonography and whole-body CT was not a cost-effective option when compared with CT colonography alone (ICER, $164,020). This was mainly a result of the high cost of false-positive follow-up for CAD and to the poor efficacy of lung cancer screening. Expected value of perfect information was $520 per patient. CONCLUSION: The addition of chest CT to CT colonography does not appear to be a cost-effective alternative. Further research is needed before whole-body CT can be recommended in clinical practice.

Computed tomographic colonography to screen for colorectal cancer, extracolonic cancer, and aortic aneurysm: model simulation with cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: In addition to detecting colorectal neoplasia, abdominal computed tomography (CT) with colonography technique (CTC) can also detect unsuspected extracolonic cancers and abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA).The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of this combined abdominal CT screening strategy are unknown. METHODS: A computerized Markov model was constructed to simulate the occurrence of colorectal neoplasia, extracolonic malignant neoplasm, and AAA in a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 subjects from the United States who were 50 years of age. Simulated screening with CTC, using a 6-mm polyp size threshold for reporting, was compared with a competing model of optical colonoscopy (OC), both without and with abdominal ultrasonography for AAA detection (OC-US strategy). RESULTS: In the simulated population, CTC was the dominant screening strategy, gaining an additional 1458 and 462 life-years compared with the OC and OC-US strategies and being less costly, with a savings of $266 and $449 per person, respectively. The additional gains for CTC were largely due to a decrease in AAA-related deaths, whereas the modeled benefit from extracolonic cancer downstaging was a relatively minor factor. At sensitivity analysis, OC-US became more cost-effective only when the CTC sensitivity for large polyps dropped to 61% or when broad variations of costs were simulated, such as an increase in CTC cost from $814 to $1300 or a decrease in OC cost from $1100 to $500. With the OC-US approach, suboptimal compliance had a strong negative influence on efficacy and cost-effectiveness. The estimated mortality from CT-induced cancer was less than estimated colonoscopy-related mortality (8 vs 22 deaths), both of which were minor compared with the positive benefit from screening. CONCLUSION: When detection of extracolonic findings such as AAA and extracolonic cancer are considered in addition to colorectal neoplasia in our model simulation, CT colonography is a dominant screening strategy (ie, more clinically effective and more cost-effective) over both colonoscopy and colonoscopy with 1-time ultrasonography.