Search

Abstract Dietary interventions can reduce progression to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in people with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia. In this study we aimed to determine the impact of a DNA-personalised nutrition intervention in people with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia over 26 weeks. ASPIRE-DNA was a pilot study. Participants were randomised into three arms to receive either (i) Control arm: standard care (NICE guidelines) (n = 51), (ii) Intervention arm: DNA-personalised dietary advice (n = 50), or (iii) Exploratory arm: DNA-personalised dietary advice via a self-guided app and wearable device (n = 46). The primary outcome was the difference in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) between the Control and Intervention arms after 6 weeks. 180 people were recruited, of whom 148 people were randomised, mean age of 59 years (SD = 11), 69% of whom were female. There was no significant difference in the FPG change between the Control and Intervention arms at 6 weeks (− 0.13 mmol/L (95% CI [− 0.37, 0.11]), p = 0.29), however, we found that a DNA-personalised dietary intervention led to a significant reduction of FPG at 26 weeks in the Intervention arm when compared to standard care (− 0.019 (SD = 0.008), p = 0.01), as did the Exploratory arm (− 0.021 (SD = 0.008), p = 0.006). HbA1c at 26 weeks was significantly reduced in the Intervention arm when compared to standard care (− 0.038 (SD = 0.018), p = 0.04). There was some evidence suggesting prevention of progression to T2DM across the groups that received a DNA-based intervention (p = 0.06). Personalisation of dietary advice based on DNA did not result in glucose changes within the first 6 weeks but was associated with significant reduction of FPG and HbA1c at 26 weeks when compared to standard care. The DNA-based diet was effective regardless of intervention type, though results should be interpreted with caution due to the low sample size. These findings suggest that DNA-based dietary guidance is an effective intervention compared to standard care, but there is still a minimum timeframe of adherence to the intervention before changes in clinical outcomes become apparent. Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov.uk Ref: NCT03702465.

Abstract Background As SARS-CoV-2 testing expands, particularly to widespread asymptomatic testing, high sensitivity point-of-care PCR platforms may optimise potential benefits from pooling multiple patients’ samples. Method We tested patients and asymptomatic citizens for SARS-CoV-2, exploring the efficiency and utility of CovidNudge (i) for detection in individuals’ sputum (compared to nasopharyngeal swabs), (ii) for detection in pooled sputum samples, and (iii) by modelling roll out scenarios for pooled sputum testing. Results Across 295 paired samples, we find no difference (p = 0.1236) in signal strength for sputum (mean amplified replicates (MAR) 25.2, standard deviation (SD) 14.2, range 0–60) compared to nasopharyngeal swabs (MAR 27.8, SD 12.4, range 6–56). At 10-sample pool size we find some drop in absolute strength of signal (individual sputum MAR 42.1, SD 11.8, range 13–60 vs. pooled sputum MAR 25.3, SD 14.6, range 1–54; p

Summary: Background: Access to rapid diagnosis is key to the control and management of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Laboratory RT-PCR testing is the current standard of care but usually requires a centralised laboratory and significant infrastructure. We describe our diagnostic accuracy assessment of a novel, rapid point-of-care real time RT-PCR CovidNudge test, which requires no laboratory handling or sample pre-processing. Methods: Between April and May, 2020, we obtained two nasopharyngeal swab samples from individuals in three hospitals in London and Oxford (UK). Samples were collected from three groups: self-referred health-care workers with suspected COVID-19; patients attending emergency departments with suspected COVID-19; and hospital inpatient admissions with or without suspected COVID-19. For the CovidNudge test, nasopharyngeal swabs were inserted directly into a cartridge which contains all reagents and components required for RT-PCR reactions, including multiple technical replicates of seven SARS-CoV-2 gene targets (rdrp1, rdrp2, e-gene, n-gene, n1, n2 and n3) and human ribonuclease P (RNaseP) as sample adequacy control. Swab samples were tested in parallel using the CovidNudge platform, and with standard laboratory RT-PCR using swabs in viral transport medium for processing in a central laboratory. The primary analysis was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the point-of-care CovidNudge test with laboratory-based testing. Findings: We obtained 386 paired samples: 280 (73%) from self-referred health-care workers, 15 (4%) from patients in the emergency department, and 91 (23%) hospital inpatient admissions. Of the 386 paired samples, 67 tested positive on the CovidNudge point-of-care platform and 71 with standard laboratory RT-PCR. The overall sensitivity of the point-of-care test compared with laboratory-based testing was 94% (95% CI 86–98) with an overall specificity of 100% (99–100). The sensitivity of the test varied by group (self-referred healthcare workers 94% [95% CI 85–98]; patients in the emergency department 100% [48–100]; and hospital inpatient admissions 100% [29–100]). Specificity was consistent between groups (self-referred health-care workers 100% [95% CI 98–100]; patients in the emergency department 100% [69–100]; and hospital inpatient admissions 100% [96–100]). Point of care testing performance was similar during a period of high background prevalence of laboratory positive tests (25% [95% 20–31] in April, 2020) and low prevalence (3% [95% 1–9] in inpatient screening). Amplification of viral nucleocapsid (n1, n2, and n3) and envelope protein gene (e-gene) were most sensitive for detection of spiked SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Interpretation: The CovidNudge platform was a sensitive, specific, and rapid point of care test for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 without laboratory handling or sample pre-processing. The device, which has been implemented in UK hospitals since May, 2020, could enable rapid decisions for clinical care and testing programmes. Funding: National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at Oxford University in partnership with Public Health England, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Oxford, and DnaNudge.