Intervention and mechanisms of alanyl-glutamine for inflammation, nutrition, and enteropathy: a randomized controlled trial

Objective: Determine the minimum dosage of alanyl-glutamine (Ala-Gln) required to improve gut integrity and growth in children at risk of environmental enteropathy (EE). Methods: This was a double-blinded randomized placebo-controlled dose-response trial. We enrolled 140 children residing in a low-income community in Fortaleza, Brazil. Participants were 2 to 60 months old and had weight-for-age (WAZ), height-for-age (HAZ), or weight-for-height (WHZ) z-scores less than −1. We randomized children to 10 days of nutritional supplementation: Ala-Gln at 3 g/day, Ala-Gln at 6 g/day, Ala-Gln at 12 g/day, or an isonitrogenous dose of glycine (Gly) placebo at 12.5 g/day. Our primary outcome was urinary lactulose-mannitol excretion testing. Secondary outcomes were anthropometry, fecal markers of inflammation, urine metabolic profiles, and malabsorption (spot fecal energy). Results: Of 140 children, 103 completed 120 days of follow-up (24% dropout). In the group receiving the highest dose of Ala-Gln, we detected a modest improvement in urinary lactulose excretion from 0.19% on day 1 to 0.17% on day 10 (P = 0.05). We observed significant but transient improvements in WHZ at day 10 in 2 Ala-Gln groups, and in WHZ and WAZ in all Ala-Gln groups at day 30. We detected no effects on fecal inflammatory markers, diarrheal morbidity, or urine metabolic profiles; but did observe modest reductions in fecal energy and fecal lactoferrin in participants receiving Ala-Gln. Conclusions: Intermediate dose Ala-Gln promotes short-term improvement in gut integrity and ponderal growth in children at risk of EE. Lower doses produced improvements in ponderal growth in the absence of enhanced gut integrity

Is complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) cost-effective? a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Out-of-pocket expenditures of over $34 billion per year in the US are an apparent testament to a widely held belief that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies have benefits that outweigh their costs. However, regardless of public opinion, there is often little more than anecdotal evidence on the health and economic implications of CAM therapies. The objectives of this study are to present an overview of economic evaluation and to expand upon a previous review to examine the current scope and quality of CAM economic evaluations. METHODS: The data sources used were Medline, AMED, Alt-HealthWatch, and the Complementary and Alternative Medicine Citation Index; January 1999 to October 2004. Papers that reported original data on specific CAM therapies from any form of standard economic analysis were included. Full economic evaluations were subjected to two types of quality review. The first was a 35-item checklist for reporting quality, and the second was a set of four criteria for study quality (randomization, prospective collection of economic data, comparison to usual care, and no blinding). RESULTS: A total of 56 economic evaluations (39 full evaluations) of CAM were found covering a range of therapies applied to a variety of conditions. The reporting quality of the full evaluations was poor for certain items, but was comparable to the quality found by systematic reviews of economic evaluations in conventional medicine. Regarding study quality, 14 (36%) studies were found to meet all four criteria. These exemplary studies indicate CAM therapies that may be considered cost-effective compared to usual care for various conditions: acupuncture for migraine, manual therapy for neck pain, spa therapy for Parkinson's, self-administered stress management for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, pre- and post-operative oral nutritional supplementation for lower gastrointestinal tract surgery, biofeedback for patients with "functional" disorders (eg, irritable bowel syndrome), and guided imagery, relaxation therapy, and potassium-rich diet for cardiac patients. CONCLUSION: Whereas the number and quality of economic evaluations of CAM have increased in recent years and more CAM therapies have been shown to be of good value, the majority of CAM therapies still remain to be evaluated