Manchester Intermittent Diet in Gestational Diabetes Acceptability Study (MIDDAS-GDM): a two-arm randomised feasibility protocol trial of an intermittent low-energy diet (ILED) in women with gestational diabetes and obesity in Greater Manchester.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is rising in the UK and is associated with maternal and neonatal complications. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance advises first-line management with healthy eating and physical activity which is only moderately effective for achieving glycaemic targets. Approximately 30% of women require medication with metformin and/or insulin. There is currently no strong evidence base for any particular dietary regimen to improve outcomes in GDM. Intermittent low-energy diets (ILEDs) are associated with improved glycaemic control and reduced insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes and could be a viable option in the management of GDM. This study aims to test the safety, feasibility and acceptability of an ILED intervention among women with GDM compared with best National Health Service (NHS) care. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: We aim to recruit 48 women with GDM diagnosed between 24 and 30 weeks gestation from antenatal clinics at Wythenshawe and St Mary's hospitals, Manchester Foundation Trust, over 13 months starting in November 2022. Participants will be randomised (1:1) to ILED (2 low-energy diet days/week of 1000 kcal and 5 days/week of the best NHS care healthy diet and physical activity advice) or best NHS care 7 days/week until delivery of their baby. Primary outcomes include uptake and retention of participants to the trial and adherence to both dietary interventions. Safety outcomes will include birth weight, gestational age at delivery, neonatal hypoglycaemic episodes requiring intervention, neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia, admission to special care baby unit or neonatal intensive care unit, stillbirths, the percentage of women with hypoglycaemic episodes requiring third-party assistance, and significant maternal ketonaemia (defined as ≥1.0 mmol/L). Secondary outcomes will assess the fidelity of delivery of the interventions, and qualitative analysis of participant and healthcare professionals' experiences of the diet. Exploratory outcomes include the number of women requiring metformin and/or insulin. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee (22/EE/0119). Findings will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and shared with diabetes charitable bodies and organisations in the UK, such as Diabetes UK and the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05344066.

Randomised controlled trial of breast cancer and multiple disease prevention weight loss programmes vs written advice amongst women attending a breast cancer family history clinic.

BACKGROUND: Overweight and obesity are common amongst women attending breast cancer Family History, Risk and Prevention Clinics (FHRPCs). Overweight increases risk of breast cancer (BC) and conditions including1 cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type-2 diabetes (T2D). Clinics provide written health behaviour advice with is likely to have minimal effects. We assessed efficacy of two remotely delivered weight loss programmes vs. written advice. METHOD: 210 women with overweight or obesity attending three UK FHRPCs were randomised to either a BC prevention programme (BCPP) framed to reduce risk of BC (n = 86), a multiple disease prevention programme (MDPP) framed to reduce risk of BC, CVD and T2D (n = 87), or written advice (n = 37). Change in weight and health behaviours were assessed at 12-months. RESULTS: Weight loss at 12 months was -6.3% (-8.2, -4.5) in BCPP, -6.0% (-7.9, -4.2) in MDPP and -3.3% (-6.2, -0.5) in the written group (p = 0.451 across groups). The percentage losing ≥10% weight in these groups were respectively 34%, 23% and 14% (p = 0.038 across groups). DISCUSSION: BCPP and MDPP programmes resulted in more women achieving ≥10% weight loss, but no evidence of additional benefits of MDPP. A multicentre RCT to test the BCPP across UK FHRPCs is warranted. Clinical Trial Registration ISRCTN16431108.

Randomised controlled trial of intermittent vs continuous energy restriction during chemotherapy for early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Excess adiposity at diagnosis and weight gain during chemotherapy is associated with tumour recurrence and chemotherapy toxicity. We assessed the efficacy of intermittent energy restriction (IER) vs continuous energy restriction (CER) for weight control and toxicity reduction during chemotherapy. METHODS: One hundred and seventy-two women were randomised to follow IER or CER throughout adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were weight and body fat change. Secondary endpoints included chemotherapy toxicity, cardiovascular risk markers, and correlative markers of metabolism, inflammation and oxidative stress. RESULTS: Primary analyses showed non-significant reductions in weight (-1.1 (-2.4 to +0.2) kg, p = 0.11) and body fat (-1.0 (-2.1 to +0.1) kg, p = 0.086) in IER compared with CER. Predefined secondary analyses adjusted for body water showed significantly greater reductions in weight (-1.4 (-2.5 to -0.2) kg, p = 0.024) and body fat (-1.1 (-2.1 to -0.2) kg, p = 0.046) in IER compared with CER. Incidence of grade 3/4 toxicities were comparable overall (IER 31.0 vs CER 36.5%, p = 0.45) with a trend to fewer grade 3/4 toxicities with IER (18%) vs CER (31%) during cycles 4-6 of primarily taxane therapy (p = 0.063). CONCLUSIONS: IER is feasible during chemotherapy. The potential efficacy for weight control and reducing toxicity needs to be tested in future larger trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN04156504.

Testing a breast cancer prevention and a multiple disease prevention weight loss programme amongst women within the UK NHS breast screening programme-a randomised feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Excess weight and unhealthy behaviours (e.g. sedentariness, high alcohol) are common amongst women including those attending breast screening. These factors increase the risk of breast cancer and other diseases. We tested the feasibility and acceptability of a weight loss/behaviour change programme framed to reduce breast cancer risk (breast cancer prevention programme, BCPP) compared to one framed to reduce risk of breast cancer, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes (T2D) (multiple disease prevention programme, MDPP). METHODS: Women aged 47-73 years with overweight or obesity (n = 1356) in the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) were randomised (1:2) to be invited to join a BCPP or a MDPP. The BCPP included personalised information on breast cancer risk and a web and phone weight loss/behaviour change intervention. The MDPP also included an NHS Health Check (lipids, blood pressure, HbA1c and personalised feedback for risk of CVD [QRISK2] and T2D [QDiabetes and HbA1c]). Primary outcomes were uptake and retention and other feasibility outcomes which include intervention fidelity and prevalence of high CVD and T2D risk. Secondary outcomes included change in weight. RESULTS: The BCPP and MDPP had comparable rates of uptake: 45/508 (9%) vs. 81/848 (10%) and 12-month retention; 33/45 (73%) vs. 53/81 (65%). Both programmes had a high fidelity of delivery with receipt of mean (95% CI) 90 (88-98% of scheduled calls, 91 (86-95%) of scheduled e-mails and 89 (76-102) website entries per woman over the 12-month period. The MDPP identified 15% of women with a previously unknown 10-year CVD QRISK2 of ≥ 10% and 56% with 10-year Qdiabetes risk of ≥ 10%. Both groups experienced good comparable weight loss: BCPP 26/45 (58%) and MDPP 46/81 (57%) with greater than 5% weight loss at 12 months using baseline observation carried forward imputation. CONCLUSIONS: Both programmes appeared feasible. The MDPP identified previously unknown CVD and T2D risk factors but does not appear to increase engagement with behaviour change beyond a standard BCPP amongst women attending breast screening. A future definitive effectiveness trial of BCPP is supported by acceptable uptake and retention, and good weight loss. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN91372184 , registered 28 September 2014.