Association of the Chronotype Score with Circulating Trimethylamine N-Oxide (TMAO) Concentrations

Individual differences in the chronotype, an attitude that best expresses the individual circadian preference in behavioral and biological rhythms, have been associated with cardiometabolic risk and gut dysbiosis. Up to now, there are no studies evaluating the association between chronotypes and circulating TMAO concentrations, a predictor of cardiometabolic risk and a useful marker of gut dysbiosis. In this study population (147 females and 100 males), subjects with the morning chronotype had the lowest BMI and waist circumference (p < 0.001), and a better metabolic profile compared to the other chronotypes. In addition, the morning chronotype had the highest adherence to the Mediterranean diet (p < 0.001) and the lowest circulating TMAO concentrations (p < 0.001). After adjusting for BMI and adherence to the Mediterranean diet, the correlation between circulating TMAO concentrations and chronotype score was still kept (r = −0.627, p < 0.001). Using a linear regression analysis, higher chronotype scores were mostly associated with lower circulating TMAO concentrations (β = −0.479, t = −12.08, and p < 0.001). Using a restricted cubic spline analysis, we found that a chronotype score ≥59 (p < 0.001, R² = −0.824) demonstrated a more significant inverse linear relationship with circulating TMAO concentrations compared with knots <59 (neither chronotype) and <41 (evening chronotype). The current study reported the first evidence that higher circulating TMAO concentrations were associated with the evening chronotype that, in turn, is usually linked to an unhealthy lifestyle mostly characterized by low adherence to the MD.     

Referrals to dietitians/nutritionists: A cross‐sectional analysis of Australian GP registrars’ clinical practice

Aim

The present study aimed to describe referral patterns of general practitioner (GP) registrars to dietitians/nutritionists. There is a paucity of research regarding GP referral patterns to dietitians/nutritionists. Limited data show increasing referrals from established GPs to dietitians/nutritionists. There are no data on GP registrar (trainee) referrals.

Methods

This was a cross‐sectional analysis of data from the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) study. ReCEnT is an ongoing, multicentre, prospective cohort study of registrars, which documents 60 consecutive consultations of each registrar in each of the three six‐month GP training terms. The outcome factor in this analysis was a problem/diagnosis resulting in dietitian/nutritionist referral (2010–2015). Independent variables were related to registrar, patient, practice and consultation.

Results

A total of 1124 registrars contributed data from 145 708 consultations. Of 227 190 problems/diagnoses, 587 (0.26% (confidence interval: 0.23–0.29)) resulted in dietitian/nutritionist referral. The most common problems/diagnoses referred related to overweight/obesity (27.1%) and type 2 diabetes (21.1%). Of referrals to a dietitian/nutritionist, 60.8% were for a chronic disease, and 38.8% were related to a Chronic Disease Management plan. Dietitian/nutritionist referral was significantly associated with a number of independent variables reflecting continuity of care, patient complexity, chronic disease, health equity and registrar engagement.

Conclusions

Established patients with chronic disease and complex care needs are more likely than other patients to be referred by registrars to dietitians/nutritionists. Nutrition behaviours are a major risk factor in chronic disease, and we have found evidence for dietitian/nutritionist referrals representing one facet of engagement by registrars with patients’ complex care needs.     

Implementation Science in Evidence-based Nutrition Practice: Considerations for the Registered Dietitian Nutritionist

Nutrition and dietetics practice should be based on the highest-quality and most recent available evidence. Unfortunately, translating research to day-to-day practice often involves long lag times. Implementation science is an emerging field that evaluates methods that promote uptake of research findings into daily practice. Numerous theories and frameworks have been developed to provide guidance for implementation research and operationalization of recommendations. This paper provides a broad overview of implementation science and highlights frameworks such as the Normalization Process Theory that can be used by registered dietitian nutritionist (RDNs) to encourage systematic uptake of evidence into practice.     

Community-Based Survey Exploring Use of the Dietary Supplement Creatine by Adult Non-Athletes

Creatine is classified as a “sports supplement”, but it also has health benefits. The purpose of this study was to assess use of creatine as a dietary supplement in adult non-athletes. Three hundred ninety-nine adults (19–89 years) completed an online survey. Among the respondents, 77% (n = 307) were regularly active, including participation in weightlifting (34%), running (34%), and cycling (21%). Twenty-eight percent (n = 111) reported use of creatine with an average dose of 6.4 ± 4.5 g. Daily creatine use was reported by 45%, and 38% reported using creatine 2–6 times weekly. Primary sources of information about creatine were trainers/coaches (29%), friends/family (32%), and internet (28%). Forty percent (n = 44) of creatine users were female. When compared by age, 46% of young, 32% of midlife, and 6% of old respondents reported creatine use with no differences in dose or frequency. Young and midlife respondents reported primarily trainers/coaches, friends/family, and internet as sources of information about creatine, but old respondents limited their sources to friends/family and fitness magazines. Although creatine is widely used by adult non-athletes who regularly exercise, dietitians and other healthcare providers are not the primary source of information. Fitness trainers can appropriately provide guidance and education regarding safe and effective use of creatine.     

Enteral and Parenteral Order Writing Survey—A Collaborative Evaluation Between the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ Dietitians in Nutrition Support Dietetics Practice Group and the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) Dietetics Practice Section

IntroductionIn 2014 and 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services authorized nutrition-related ordering privileges for registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs) in hospital and long-term care settings, respectively. Despite this practice advancement, information describing current parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) ordering practices is lacking. Dietitians in Nutrition Support, a dietetic practice group of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the Dietetics Practice Section of the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) utilized a survey to describe PN and EN ordering practices among RDNs in the United States.MethodsA cross-sectional study design was utilized to describe RDN PN and EN ordering privileges. Respondents were asked to describe PN and EN ordering privileges, primary practice setting, primary patient population served, nutrition specialty certification, highest degree earned, career length, and, if applicable, the nature of prior denials for ordering privileges or reasons for not applying for ordering privileges.ResultsSeven hundred two RDNs completed the survey (12% response rate), with 664 RDNs providing complete data. The majority of respondents (n=558) cared for adult/geriatric patients. Among this subset, 47% had no PN ordering privileges; 14% could order and sign PN; 28% could order PN with provider cosignature; and 10% could order partial PN with provider cosignature. Nineteen percent of RDNs had no EN ordering privileges; 37% could order and sign EN; and 44% could order EN with provider cosignature. RDNs with ordering privileges were more likely to have a nutrition specialty certification and work in an academic or community hospital setting.ConclusionPN and EN ordering privileges are varied because of institution and state requirements. Future research describing the outcomes associated with RDN ordering privileges is needed. This article has been approved by the Academy’s Research, International, and Scientific Affairs team and Council on Research and the ASPEN Board of Directors. This article has been co-published with permission in Nutrition in Clinical Practice. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Either citation can be used when citing this article.