1.
Inadequate dietary energy intake associates with higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome in different groups of hemodialysis patients: a clinical observational study in multiple dialysis centers.
Duong, TV, Wong, TC, Chen, HH, Chen, TW, Chen, TH, Hsu, YH, Peng, SJ, Kuo, KL, Liu, HC, Lin, ET, et al
BMC nephrology. 2018;(1):236
Abstract
BACKGROUND Metabolic syndrome (MetS) has been established as a risk for cardiovascular diseases and mortality in hemodialysis patients. Energy intake (EI) is an important nutritional therapy for preventing MetS. We examined the association of self-reported dietary EI with metabolic abnormalities and MetS among hemodialysis patients. METHODS A cross-sectional study design was carried out from September 2013 to April 2017 in seven hemodialysis centers. Data were collected from 228 hemodialysis patients with acceptable EI report, 20 years old and above, underwent three hemodialysis sessions a week for at least past 3 months. Dietary EI was evaluated by a three-day dietary record, and confirmed by 24-h dietary recall. Body compositions were measured by bioelectrical impedance analysis. Biochemical data were analyzed using standard laboratory tests. The cut-off values of daily EI were 30 kcal/kg, and 35 kcal/kg for age ≥ 60 years and < 60 years, respectively. MetS was defined by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE-MetS), and Harmonizing Metabolic Syndrome (HMetS). Logistic regression models were utilized for examining the association between EI and MetS. Age, gender, physical activity, hemodialysis vintage, Charlson comorbidity index, high sensitive C-reactive protein, and interdialytic weight gains were adjusted in the multivariate analysis. RESULTS The prevalence of inadequate EI, AACE-MetS, and HMetS were 60.5%, 63.2%, and 53.9%, respectively. Inadequate EI was related to higher proportion of metabolic abnormalities and MetS (p < 0.05). Results of the multivariate analysis shows that inadequate EI was significantly linked with higher prevalence of impaired fasting glucose (OR = 2.42, p < 0.01), overweight/obese (OR = 6.70, p < 0.001), elevated waist circumference (OR = 8.17, p < 0.001), AACE-MetS (OR = 2.26, p < 0.01), and HMetS (OR = 3.52, p < 0.01). In subgroup anslysis, inadequate EI strongly associated with AACE-MetS in groups of non-hypertension (OR = 4.09, p = 0.004), and non-cardiovascular diseases (OR = 2.59, p = 0.012), and with HMetS in all sub-groups of hypertension (OR = 2.59~ 5.33, p < 0.05), diabetic group (OR = 8.33, p = 0.003), and non-cardiovascular diseases (OR = 3.79, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Inadequate EI and MetS prevalence was high. Energy intake strongly determined MetS in different groups of hemodialysis patients.
2.
The long-term influence of orlistat on dietary intake in obese subjects with components of metabolic syndrome.
Svendsen, M, Helgeland, M, Tonstad, S
Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association. 2009;(1):55-63
Abstract
BACKGROUND Orlistat is a lipase inhibitor that reduces the intestinal absorption of fat and may enhance the effects of dietary and behavioural therapy on weight loss and maintenance. The present study examined the effect of orlistat on dietary intake, especially fat intake, during long-term weight maintenance. METHODS Subjects comprised 44 men and women (aged 18-63 years; body mass index 37.5 +/- 4.3 kg m(-2)) included in the Scandinavian Multicenter study of Obese subjects with the metabolic syndrome, a 3-year clinical trial of orlistat or placebo following an 8-week, very low energy diet (VLED). Two months after the end of the trial when the use of orlistat was optional, 33 subjects remained in the study. A dietary interview based on a validated food frequency questionnaire was conducted before the VLED, after 1 year of treatment with orlistat or placebo and 2 months after the end of the trial. RESULTS At 1 year, dietary intake did not differ between the orlistat and placebo group. Energy percent (E%) fat was reduced and E% carbohydrate was increased within both groups. Two months after the end of the trial, E% fat was 32.6% (SD 6.2%) in subjects that chose to take orlistat and 27.7% (SD 5.5%) in subjects not taking orlistat [between group difference -5.0% (95% confidence interval -9.2 to -0.7); P = 0.021]. CONCLUSIONS The use of orlistat compared with placebo in a lifestyle modification programme does not appear to influence dietary intake. Subjects that chose to take orlistat after the end of the programme did not comply with dietary recommendations and this may hamper the effect of the drug.