The effects of acute CRAM supplementation on reaction time and subjective measures of focus and alertness in healthy college students

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of acute and prolonged (4-weeks) ingestion of a supplement designed to improve reaction time and subjective measures of alertness, energy, fatigue, and focus compared to placebo.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Nineteen physically-active subjects (17 men and 2 women) were randomly assigned to a group that either consumed a supplement (21.1 ± 0.6 years; body mass: 80.6 ± 9.4 kg) or placebo (21.3 ± 0.8 years; body mass: 83.4 ± 18.5 kg). During the initial testing session (T1), subjects were provided 1.5 g of the supplement (CRAM; α-glycerophosphocholine, choline bitartrate, phosphatidylserine, vitamins B3, B6, and B12, folic acid, L-tyrosine, anhydrous caffeine, acetyl-L-carnitine, and naringin) or a placebo (PL), and rested quietly for 10-minutes before completing a questionnaire on subjective feelings of energy, fatigue, alertness and focus (PRE). Subjects then performed a 4-minute quickness and reaction test followed by a 10-min bout of exhaustive exercise. The questionnaire and reaction testing sequence was then repeated (POST). Subjects reported back to the lab (T2) following 4-weeks of supplementation and repeated the testing sequence.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Reaction time significantly declined (p = 0.050) between PRE and POST at T1 in subjects consuming PL, while subjects under CRAM supplementation were able to maintain (p = 0.114) their performance. Significant performance declines were seen in both groups from PRE to POST at T2. Elevations in fatigue were seen for CRAM at both T1 and T2 (p = 0.001 and p = 0.000, respectively), but only at T2 for PL (p = 0.029). Subjects in CRAM maintained focus between PRE and POST during both T1 and T2 trials (p = 0.152 and p = 0.082, respectively), whereas significant declines in focus were observed between PRE and POST in PL at both trials (p = 0.037 and p = 0.014, respectively). No difference in alertness was seen at T1 between PRE and POST for CRAM (p = 0.083), but a significant decline was recorded at T2 (p = 0.005). Alertness was significantly lower at POST at both T1 and T2 for PL (p = 0.040 and p = 0.33, respectively). No differences in any of these subjective measures were seen between the groups at any time point.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Results indicate that acute ingestion of CRAM can maintain reaction time, and subjective feelings of focus and alertness to both visual and auditory stimuli in healthy college students following exhaustive exercise. However, some habituation may occur following 4-weeks of supplementation.</p

Comparing Student Attitudes to Spreadsheet and Advanced Statistical Packages

The statistical package chosen to aid in teaching quantitative methods is at the instructor’s discretion, but little research has investigated student attitude toward these different packages. This study compared Google Sheets, a spreadsheet package similar to Microsoft Excel, and a traditional package, SPSS, to determine which of the two programs students preferred to use. One hundred and thirty-nine students enrolled in a quantitative methods course completed surveys at the middle and end of the semester during Spring 2016 and Fall 2016. The results suggested Google Sheets was preferred to SPSS at both time points, and attitudes toward Google Sheets improved over time. Further research could investigate the perspectives of students in other levels of experience with statistics and other statistical packages

Switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide in antiretroviral regimens for virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1 infection: a randomised, active-controlled, multicentre, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral regimens containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate have been associated with renal toxicity and reduced bone mineral density. Tenofovir alafenamide is a novel tenofovir prodrug that reduces tenofovir plasma concentrations by 90%, thereby decreasing off-target side-effects. We aimed to assess whether efficacy, safety, and tolerability were non-inferior in patients switched to a regimen containing tenofovir alafenamide versus in those remaining on one containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. METHODS: In this randomised, actively controlled, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited HIV-1-infected adults from Gilead clinical studies at 168 sites in 19 countries. Patients were virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA &lt;50 copies per mL) with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 50 mL per min or greater, and were taking one of four tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens for at least 96 weeks before enrolment. With use of a third-party computer-generated sequence, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive a once-a-day single-tablet containing elvitegravir 150 mg, cobicistat 150 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 10 mg (tenofovir alafenamide group) or to carry on taking one of four previous tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group) for 96 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by previous treatment regimen in blocks of six. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to the assigned study regimen; outcome assessors were masked until database lock. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who received at least one dose of study drug who had undetectable viral load (HIV-1 RNA &lt;50 copies per mL) at week 48. The non-inferiority margin was 12%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01815736. FINDINGS: Between April 12, 2013 and April 3, 2014, we enrolled 1443 patients. 959 patients were randomly assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide group and 477 to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. Viral suppression at week 48 was noted in 932 (97%) patients assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide group and in 444 (93%) assigned to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (adjusted difference 4·1%, 95% CI 1·6-6·7), with virological failure noted in ten and six patients, respectively. The number of adverse events was similar between the two groups, but study drug-related adverse events were more common in the tenofovir alafenamide group (204 patients [21%] vs 76 [16%]). Hip and spine bone mineral density and glomerular filtration were each significantly improved in patients in the tenofovir alafenamide group compared with those in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. INTERPRETATION: Switching to a tenofovir alafenamide-containing regimen from one containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was non-inferior for maintenance of viral suppression and led to improved bone mineral density and renal function. Longer term follow-up is needed to better understand the clinical impact of these changes. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences