Effects and feasibility of a prehabilitation programme incorporating a low-carbohydrate, high-fat dietary approach in patients with type 2 diabetes: A retrospective study

Association of low-carbohydrate diet scores and type 2 diabetes in Chinese rural adults: The Henan Rural Cohort Study

PURPOSE

To investigate the association between low-carbohydrate diet scores (LCDs) and the risk of type 2 diabetes in rural China.

METHODS

A total of 38,100 adults were included in the Henan Rural Cohort Study. Macronutrient intake was assessed via a validated food-frequency questionnaire to create low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) scores. Multivariate logistic regression models and subgroup analysis were performed to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI).

RESULTS

After multivariable adjustment, participants with a high total low-carbohydrate diet score have a high risk of T2D (extreme-quartile OR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.04-1.41; P = 0.007), whereas plant-based LCD score is not related to T2D risk. Among individuals with a BMI < 24 (extreme-quartile OR = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.01-1.47; P < 0.001) or high levels of physical activity (extreme-quartile OR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.17-1.72; P < 0.001), the animal-based LCD score is positively correlated with the risk of T2D.

CONCLUSION

Among Chinese rural populations, high-fat-low carbohydrate diet is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. High intake of animal protein and fat also increases T2D risk in those who are overweight or have high physical activity.

Effects of a Low-Carbohydrate High-Fat Diet Combined with High-Intensity Interval Training on Body Composition and Maximal Oxygen Uptake: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The low-carbohydrate high-fat (LCHF) diet has recently been subject to attention on account of its reported influences on body composition and physical performance. However, the combined effect of LCHF with high-intensity interval training (HIIT) is unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to explore the effect of the LCHF diet combined with HIIT on human body composition (i.e., body weight (BM), body mass index (BMI), fat mass (FM), body fat percentage (BFP), fat-free mass (FFM)) and maximal oxygen uptake (VO_2max). Online libraries (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, CNKI, Wan Fang) were used to search initial studies until July 2021, from which 10 out of 2440 studies were included. WMD served as the effect size with a confidence interval value of 95%. The results of meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in BM (WMD = −5.299; 95% CI: −7.223, −3.376, p = 0.000), BMI (WMD = −1.150; 95% CI: −2.225, −0.075, p = 0.036), BFP (WMD = −2.787; 95% CI: −4.738, −0.835, p = 0.005) and a significant increase in VO_2max (WMD = 3.311; 95% CI: 1.705, 4.918, p = 0.000), while FM (WMD = −2.221; 95% CI: −4.582, 0.139, p = 0.065) and FFM (WMD = 0.487; 95% CI: −3.512, 4.469, p = 0.814) remained unchanged. In conclusion, the LCHF diet combined with HIIT can reduce weight and fat effectively. This combination is sufficient to prevent muscle mass loss during LCHF, and further enhance VO_2max. Further research might be required to clarify the effect of other types of exercise on body composition and physical performance during LCHF.

The Feasibility and Effects of a Telehealth-Delivered Home-Based Prehabilitation Program for Cancer Patients during the Pandemic

Patients awaiting cancer treatment were classified as "vulnerable" and advised to shield to protect themselves from exposure to coronavirus during the pandemic. These measures can negatively impact patients. We sought to establish the feasibility and effects of a telehealth-delivered home-based prehabilitation program during the pandemic. Eligible patients were referred from multiple centers to a regional prehabilitation unit providing home-based prehabilitation. The enrolled patients received telehealth-delivered prehabilitation prior to surgery and/or during non-surgical cancer treatment, which included personalized training exercises, dietary advice, medical optimization therapies, and psychological support. The primary outcome was to investigate the feasibility of our program. The secondary outcome was to investigate the relationship between our program and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The patients completed two questionnaires (the EQ-5D-3L and the FACIT-Fatigue Scale) pre- and post-intervention. A total of 182 patients were referred during the study period. Among the 139 (76%) patients that were enrolled, 100 patients completed the program, 24 patients have still to complete, and 15 have discontinued. A total of 66 patients were able to return completed questionnaires. These patients were recruited from colorectal, urology, breast, and cardiothoracic centers. The patients significantly improved their self-perceived health (p = 0.001), and fatigue (p = 0.000). Home-based prehabilitation is a feasible intervention. The PROs improved post-intervention.

The Feasibility of Prehabilitation as Part of the Breast Cancer Treatment Pathway

Background

There is compelling support for implementing prehabilitation to optimize perioperative risk factors and to improve postoperative outcomes. However, there is limited evidence studying the application of multimodal prehabilitation for patients with breast cancer.

Objective

To determine the feasibility of multimodal prehabilitation as part of the breast cancer treatment pathway.

Design

This was a prospective, cohort observational study. Breast cancer patients undergoing surgery were recruited. They were assigned to an intervention or control group according to patient preference.

Setting

UK prehabilitation center.

Participants

A total of 75 patients were referred during the study period. Forty eight patients (64%) did not participate; 20 of those opted to be in the control group. Twenty four patients engaged with prehabilitation and returned completed questionnaires. In total, 44 patients were included in the analysis.

Interventions

The program consisted of supervised exercise, nutritional advice, smoking cessation, and psychosocial support.

Outcome Measures

Feasibility was determined by the center's ability to deliver the program. This was measured by the number of patients who wanted to access the service, compared with those able to. Service uptake, patient satisfaction, and project costs were recorded. Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) and the use of healthcare resources were also evaluated.

Results

A total of 61 patients (81%) wanted to participate; 24 (32%) were able to partake and return questionnaires. Reasons for nonparticipation included surgery within weeks, full‐time commitments, and transportation difficulties. A total of 25 (93%) prehabilitation patients recorded high satisfaction with the program. There was a significant reduction in anxiety among prehabilitation patients. There were no significant improvements in the other PROs. There were no changes to hospital length of stay, readmissions, and complications.

Conclusions

Multimodal prehabilitation is a feasible intervention. Logistical challenges need to be addressed to improve engagement. These results are limited and would require a larger sample to confirm the findings. Work on a thorough cost‐benefit analysis is also required.