Search

This pilot study evaluated a high-energy, high-protein, peptide-based, (medium-chain triglycerides) MCT-containing enteral tube feed (Nutrison Peptisorb Plus HEHP&reg, Nutricia Ltd., Trowbridge, BA14 0XQ, UK.) containing 1.5 kcal/mL and 7.5 g protein/100 mL. Fifteen community-based, enterally tube-fed adults (42 (SD 16.3) years) received the intervention feed daily for 28 days, with gastrointestinal tolerance, compliance and nutrient intake assessed at baseline and after the intervention period. Incidence and intensity of constipation (p = 0.496), nausea (p = 1.000), abdominal pain (p = 0.366) and bloating (p = 0.250) remained statistically unchanged, yet the incidence and intensity of diarrhoea improved significantly after receiving the intervention feed (Z = &minus, 2.271, p = 0.023). Compliance with the intervention feed was significantly greater compared to the patient&rsquo, s baseline regimens (99% vs. 87%, p = 0.038). Compared to baseline, use of the intervention feed enabled patients to significantly increase total energy (1676 kcal/day (SD 449) to 1884 kcal/day (SD 537), p = 0.039) and protein intake (73 g/day (SD 17) to 89 g/day (SD 23), p = 0.001), allowing patients to better achieve energy (from 88% to 99%, p = 0.038) and protein (from 101% to 121%, p &lt, 0.001) requirements. This pilot study demonstrates that a high-energy, high-protein, peptide-based, MCT-containing enteral tube feed maintains gastrointestinal tolerance and improves compliance, energy and protein intake in complex, enterally tube-fed, community-based adult patients, though more work is recommended to confirm this.

Background Lifestyle modification is widely recommended to kidney allograft recipients post transplantation due to the cardiometabolic risks associated with immunosuppression including new-onset diabetes, weight gain and cardiovascular events. However, we have no actual evidence that undertaking lifestyle modification protects from any adverse outcomes post transplantation. The aim of this study is to compare whether a more proactive versus passive interventional approach to modify lifestyle is associated with superior outcomes post kidney transplantation. Methods/design We designed this prospective, single-centre, open-label, randomised controlled study to compare the efficacy of active versus passive lifestyle intervention for kidney allograft recipients early post transplantation. A total of 130 eligible patients, who are stable, nondiabetic and between 3 and 24 months post kidney transplantation, will be recruited. Randomisation is being undertaken by random block permutations into passive (n = 65, leaflet guidance only) versus active lifestyle modification (n = 65, supervised intervention) over a 6-month period. Supervised intervention is being facilitated by two dietitians during the 6-month intervention period to provide continuous lifestyle intervention guidance, support and encouragement. Both dietitians are accredited with behavioural intervention skills and will utilise motivational aids to support study recruits randomised to active intervention. The primary outcome is change in abnormal glucose metabolism parameters after 6 months of comparing active versus passive lifestyle intervention. Secondary outcomes include changes in a wide array of cardiometabolic parameters, kidney allograft function and patient-reported outcome measures. Long-term tracking of patients via data linkage to electronic patient records and national registries will facilitate long-term comparison of outcomes after active versus passive lifestyle intervention beyond the 6-month intervention period. Discussion This is the first randomised controlled study to investigate the benefits of active versus passive lifestyle intervention in kidney allograft recipients for the prevention of abnormal cardiometabolic outcomes. In addition, this is the first example of utilising behaviour therapy intervention post kidney transplantation to achieve clinically beneficial outcomes, which has potential implications on many spheres of post-transplant care. Trial registration This study was registered with the Clinical Trials Registry on 27 August 2014 (ClinicalTrials.org Identifier: NCT02233491).