Determination of glycaemic response to the consumption of two specialised formulas for glycaemic control.

To assess the glycaemic response after ingestion of two specialised oral and enteral nutrition formulas for glycaemic control. The participants were sixteen healthy volunteers, aged 21-49 years, with normal glucose tolerance. The volunteers attended the tests fasting for 10 h, for 5 weeks, and consumed the reference food - glucose solution - for 3 weeks, and the two formulas DiamaxO and DiamaxIG in the following weeks, in amounts equivalent to 25 g of available carbohydrates. During the period of 120 min, seven blood samples were taken through capillary blood sampling to determine the glycaemic response. The glycaemic index (GI) was calculated according to the trapezoidal rule, ignoring areas below the fasting line. The glycaemic load (GL) was determined by the formula GL = ((GI(glucose = reference) × 'g' of available carbohydrate per serving]/100. The formulas showed low GI and GL. GI = 37·8 and GL = 6·6 for DiamaxO and GI = 21·5 and GL = 3·5 for DiamaxIG. The peak of the glycaemic response occurred 30 min after ingestion, with a marked difference in blood glucose between the Diamax products in relation to glucose. Differences were also significant at times 15, 45, 60 and 90 min in relation to glucose (ANOVA with post hoc Bonferroni, P < 0·005), but not between the two products. However, the AUC and the GI of DiamaxIG are significantly smaller than that of the DiamaxO second t test (P = 0·0059). The glycaemic response to the products is quite reduced, presenting a curve with a little accentuated shape, without high peak, especially in the modified product.

A Specialized Nutritional Formulation Prevents Hippocampal Glial Activation and Memory Impairment Induced by Amyloid-ß Oligomers in Mice.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia in the elderly and is characterized by progressive cognitive decline. Considerable evidence supports an important role of amyloid-ß oligomers (AßOs) in the pathogenesis of AD, including the induction of aberrant glial activation and memory impairment. OBJECTIVE: We have investigated the protective actions of a nutritional formulation, denoted AZ formulation, on glial activation and memory deficits induced by intracerebroventricular (i.c.v.) infusion of AßOs in mice. METHODS: Two-month-old male mice were treated orally with AZ formulation or isocaloric placebo for 30 consecutive days. Microglial and astrocytic activation were analyzed by immunohistochemistry in the hippocampus 10 days after i.c.v. infusion of AßOs (n = 5 mice per experimental condition). Memory loss was assessed by the novel object recognition (NOR) test (n = 6-10 mice per experimental condition). RESULTS: Oral treatment with the AZ formulation prevented hippocampal microglial and astrocytic activation induced by i.c.v. infusion of AßOs. The AZ formulation further protected mice from AßO-induced memory impairment. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that administration of the AZ formulation may comprise a promising preventative and non-pharmacological strategy to reduce brain inflammation and attenuate memory impairment in AD.

Oral Nutritional Supplementation in Cancer Patients Who Were Receiving Chemo/Chemoradiation Therapy: A Multicenter, Randomized Phase II Study.

Introduction: Oral nutritional supplementation (ONS) in cancer patients is justified by the low food intake caused by several factors. However, ONS can be affected by adverse events (AEs) correlated to treatment. This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of ONS (whey protein isolated, leucin, zinc-IMMAX®) during oncologic treatment.Methods: Patients in chemo/chemoradiotherapy were randomly assigned to receive IMMAX®+nutritional counseling (NC) according to daily requirements (S arm) or NC alone (C arm) for 4 weeks. Body weight (BW), %fat-free mass (%FFM) and nutrition intake were assessed before and after. In S arm, calories from IMMAX met the energy requirements. AEs were classified according to CTC-AE-NCI.Results: Eighty-five patients were included (51 females). After 4 weeks, the median of caloric intake, BW and %FFM were not statistically different in C arm. In S arm, median ONS intake was 81 g/332 kcal/day, protein intake was higher (pre: 66.75 ± 31.57 g; post: 88.57 ± 35.11 g; p < 0.01) and calories as well (pre: 1,549 ± 596 kcal; post: 1,756 ± 614 kcal; p = 0.02). The most common treatment related AEs were anemia, nausea/vomiting, not different between the arms. AEs supplement related were constipation and diarrhea (2 patients/4.6% each).Conclusion: IMMAX was safe, well tolerated, it did not interfere with oncologic treatment and provided significant amount of protein intake in this patient population, with few related AEs.