METHODS: This human postprandial study evaluated 3 edible fat blends with differing polyunsaturated to saturated fatty acids (P/S) ratios (POL = 0.27, AHA = 1.00, PCAN = 1.32). A cross-over design included mildly hypercholestrolemic subjects (9 men and 6 women) preconditioned on test diets fats at 31% energy for 7 days prior to the postprandial challenge on the 8th day with 50 g test fat. Plasma lipids and lipoproteins were monitored at 0, 1.5, 3.5, 5.5 and 7 hr.
RESULTS: Plasma triacylglycerol (TAG) concentrations in response to POL, AHA or PCAN meals were not significant for time x test meal interactions (P > 0.05) despite an observed trend (POL > AHA > PCAN). TAG area-under-the-curve (AUC) increased by 22.58% after POL and 7.63% after PCAN compared to AHA treatments (P > 0.05). Plasma total cholesterol (TC) response was not significant between meals (P > 0.05). Varying P/S ratios of test meals significantly altered prandial high density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) concentrations (P AHA > PCAN). Paired comparisons was significant between POL vs PCAN (P = 0.009) but not with AHA or between AHA vs PCAN (P > 0.05). A significantly higher HDL-C AUC for POL vs AHA (P = 0.015) and PCAN (P = 0.001) was observed. HDL-C AUC increased for POL by 25.38% and 16.0% compared to PCAN and AHA respectively. Plasma low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations was significant (P = 0.005) between meals and significantly lowest after POL meal compared to PCAN (P = 0.004) and AHA (P > 0.05) but not between AHA vs PCAN (P > 0.05). AUC for LDL-C was not significant between diets (P > 0.05). Palmitic (C16:0), oleic (C18:1), linoleic (C18:2) and linolenic (C18:3) acids in TAGs and cholesteryl esters were significantly modulated by meal source (P
DESIGN: In this cross-over, open-label, single center, randomized control trial, final-year undergraduate pharmacy students enrolled in an applied therapeutics course were randomized to HPS or CBL groups. Pretest, posttest, knowledge retention tests, and satisfaction survey were administered to students.
ASSESSMENT: One hundred seventy-four students participated in this study. The effect sizes attributable to HPS were larger than CBL in both cases. HPS groups performed significantly better in posttest and knowledge retention test compared to CBL groups pertaining to TS case (p < 0.05). Students expressed high levels of satisfaction with HPS sessions.
CONCLUSION: HPS was superior to CBL in teaching DKA and TS to final-year undergraduate pharmacy students.
METHOD: This is a single-center, single-dose, open-label, randomized, 2-treatment, 2-sequence and 2-period crossover study with a washout period of 7 days. Paracetamol/Orphenadrine tablets were administered after a 10-h fast. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were collected at scheduled time intervals prior to and up to 72 h after dosing. Blood samples were centrifuged, and separated plasma were kept frozen (- 15 °C to - 25 °C) until analysis. Plasma concentrations of orphenadrine and paracetamol were quantified using liquid-chromatography-tandem mass spectrometer using diphenhydramine as internal standard. The pharmacokinetic parameters AUC0-∞, AUC0-t and Cmax were determined using plasma concentration time profile for both preparations. Bioequivalence was assessed according to the ASEAN guideline acceptance criteria for bioequivalence which is the 90% confidence intervals of AUC0-∞, AUC0-t and Cmax ratio must be within the range of 80.00-125.00%.
RESULTS: There were 28 healthy subjects enrolled, and 27 subjects completed this trial. There were no significant differences observed between the AUC0-∞, AUC0-t and Cmax of both test and reference preparations in fasted condition. The 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of AUC0-t (100.92-111.27%), AUC0-∞ (96.94-108.08%) and Cmax (100.11-112.50%) for orphenadrine (n = 25); and AUC0-t (94.29-101.83%), AUC0-∞ (94.77-101.68%) and Cmax (87.12-101.20%) for paracetamol (n = 27) for test preparation over reference preparation were all within acceptable bioequivalence range of 80.00-125.00%.
CONCLUSION: The test preparation is bioequivalent to the reference preparation and can be used interchangeably.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: NMRR- 17-1266-36,001; registered and approved on 12 September 2017.
METHODS: Twenty healthy subjects were enrolled in a randomized, 3-way, blinded cross-over trial. The study was registered under ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier no. NCT00123456. At each test day, the subjects received one of three meals comprising 30 g of starch with 5 g of LD or UP or an energy-adjusted control meal containing pea protein. Fasting and postprandial blood glucose, insulin, C-peptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) concentrations were measured. Subjective appetite sensations were scored using visual analogue scales (VAS).
RESULTS: Linear mixed model (LMM) analysis showed a lower blood glucose, insulin and C-peptide response following the intake of LD and UP, after correction for body weight. Participants weighing ≤ 63 kg had a reduced glucose response compared to control meal between 40 and 90 min both following LD and UP meals. Furthermore, LMM analysis for C-peptide showed a significantly lower response after intake of LD. Compared to the control meal, GLP-1 response was higher after the LD meal, both before and after the body weight adjustment. The VAS scores showed a decreased appetite sensation after intake of the seaweeds. Ad-libitum food intake was not different three hours after the seaweed meals compared to control.
CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant ingestion of brown seaweeds may help improving postprandial glycaemic and appetite control in healthy and normal weight adults, depending on the dose per body weight.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov (ID# NCT02608372).
SUBJECTS/METHODS: We used a cross-over designed feeding trial in 53 healthy Asian men and women (20-50 years) to test this hypothesis by exchanging 20% energy of palm olein (PO; control) with randomly interesterified PO (IPO) or high oleic acid sunflower oil (HOS). After a 2-week run-in period on PO, participants were fed PO, IPO and HOS for 6 week consecutively in randomly allocated sequences. Fasting (midpoint and endpoint) and postprandial blood at the endpoint following a test meal (3.54 MJ, 14 g protein, 85 g carbohydrate and 50 g fat as PO) were collected for the measurement of C-peptide, insulin, glucose, plasma glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1, lipids and apolipoproteins; pre-specified primary and secondary outcomes were postprandial changes in C-peptide and plasma glucose.
RESULTS: Low density lipoprotein cholesterol was 0.3 mmol/l (95% confidence interval (95% CI)) 0.1, 0.5; P<0.001) lower on HOS than on PO or IPO as predicted, indicating good compliance to the dietary intervention. There were no significant differences (P=0.58) between diets among the 10 male and 31 female completers in the incremental area under the curve (0-2 h) for C-peptide in nmol.120 min/l: GM (95% CI) were PO 220 (196, 245), IPO 212 (190, 235) and HOS 224 (204, 244). Plasma glucose was 8% lower at 2 h on IPO vs PO and HOS (both P<0.05).
CONCLUSION: Palmitic acid in the sn-2 position does not adversely impair insulin secretion and glucose homeostasis.
METHODS: In a randomised, controlled crossover trial, ten healthy human subjects (five men, five women) were given 50 g glucose (reference food, twice); buns (0 and 10 % fenugreek seed powder); and flatbreads (0 and 10 % fenugreek seed powder) on six different occasions. Finger prick capillary blood samples were collected at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 min after the start of the meal. The palatability of the test meals was scored using Likert scales.
RESULTS: The incremental areas under the glucose curve value of buns and flatbreads with 10 % fenugreek (138 ± 17 mmol × min/L; 121 ± 16 mmol × min/L) were significantly lower than those of 0 % fenugreek bun and flatbreads (227 ± 15 mmol × min/L; 174 ± 14 mmol × min/L, P = <0.01). Adding 10 % fenugreek seed powder reduced the GI of buns from 82 ± 5 to 51 ± 7 (P