The effects of short-term low energy availability, achieved through diet or exercise, on cognitive function in oral contraceptive users and eumenorrheic women

To date, no research has explored the effects of low energy availability on cognitive performance using dietary and exercise regimens relevant to athletes. Twenty female participants (10 eumenorrheic, 10 oral contraceptive [OC] users) completed three 3-day conditions: 1) controlled-balanced energy availability without exercise (BAL; 45 kcal·kg lean body mass [LBM]−1·day−1); 2) diet-induced low energy availability without exercise (DIET; 15 kcal·kg LBM−1·day−1); and 3) exercise-induced low energy availability (EX; 15 kcal·kg LBM−1·day−1, including 30 kcal·kg LBM−1·day−1 treadmill running at 70% maximal oxygen uptake). A cognitive test battery was completed before and after each 3-day condition. Mental rotation test accuracy improved in the BAL condition, but there was a decline in accuracy in the EX condition (BAL, +2.5%; EX, −1.4%; P = 0.042, d = 0.85). DIET (+1.3%) was not different to BAL or EX (P > 0.05). All other measures of cognitive performance were not affected by condition (P > 0.05) and OC use did not affect cognitive responses (P > 0.05). Accuracy in the mental rotation test was impaired when low energy availability was induced through increased exercise energy expenditure. All other aspects of cognition were unaffected by 3 days of low energy availability through diet or exercise. OC use did not mediate the effect of low energy availability on cognition

Patterns of analgesic use, pain and self-efficacy: a cross-sectional study of patients attending a hospital rheumatology clinic

Background: Many people attending rheumatology clinics use analgesics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatories for persistent musculoskeletal pain. Guidelines for pain management recommend regular and pre-emptive use of analgesics to reduce the impact of pain. Clinical experience indicates that analgesics are often not used in this way. Studies exploring use of analgesics in arthritis have historically measured adherence to such medication. Here we examine patterns of analgesic use and their relationships to pain, self-efficacy and demographic factors. Methods: Consecutive patients were approached in a hospital rheumatology out-patient clinic. Pattern of analgesic use was assessed by response to statements such as 'I always take my tablets every day.' Pain and self-efficacy (SE) were measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale (ASES). Influence of factors on pain level and regularity of analgesic use were investigated using linear regression. Differences in pain between those agreeing and disagreeing with statements regarding analgesic use were assessed using t-tests. Results: 218 patients (85% of attendees) completed the study. Six (2.8%) patients reported no current pain, 26 (12.3%) slight, 100 (47.4%) moderate, 62 (29.4%) severe and 17 (8.1%) extreme pain. In multiple linear regression self efficacy and regularity of analgesic use were significant (p < 0.01) with lower self efficacy and more regular use of analgesics associated with more pain. Low SE was associated with greater pain: 40 (41.7%) people with low SE reported severe pain versus 22 (18.3%) people with high SE, p < 0.001. Patients in greater pain were significantly more likely to take analgesics regularly; 13 (77%) of those in extreme pain reported always taking their analgesics every day, versus 9 (35%) in slight pain. Many patients, including 46% of those in severe pain, adjusted analgesic use to current pain level. In simple linear regression, pain was the only variable significantly associated with regularity of analgesic use: higher levels of pain corresponded to more regular analgesic use (p = 0.003). Conclusion: Our study confirms that there is a strong inverse relationship between self-efficacy and pain severity. Analgesics are often used irregularly by people with arthritis, including some reporting severe pain

Buffy coat specimens remain viable as a DNA source for highly multiplexed genome-wide genetic tests after long term storage

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Blood specimen collection at an early study visit is often included in observational studies or clinical trials for analysis of secondary outcome biomarkers. A common protocol is to store buffy coat specimens for future DNA isolation and these may remain in frozen storage for many years. It is uncertain if the DNA remains suitable for modern genome wide association (GWA) genotyping.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We isolated DNA from 120 Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) clinical trial buffy coats sampling a range of storage times up to 9 years and other factors that could influence DNA yield. We performed TaqMan SNP and GWA genotyping to test whether the DNA retained integrity for high quality genetic analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We tested two QIAGEN automated protocols for DNA isolation, preferring the Compromised Blood Protocol despite similar yields. We isolated DNA from all 120 specimens (yield range 1.1-312 ug per 8.5 ml ACD tube of whole blood) with only 3/120 samples yielding < 10 ug DNA. Age of participant at blood draw was negatively associated with yield (mean change -2.1 ug/year). DNA quality was very good based on gel electrophoresis QC, TaqMan genotyping of 6 SNPs (genotyping no-call rate 1.1% in 702 genotypes), and excellent quality GWA genotyping data (maximum per sample genotype missing rate 0.64%).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>When collected as a long term clinical trial or biobank specimen for DNA, buffy coats can be stored for up to 9 years in a -80degC frozen state and still produce high yields of DNA suitable for GWA analysis and other genetic testing.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00000620">NCT00000620</a>.</p