ONC: Branched Chain Amino Acids (2006)
Citation:
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:
To examine the possibility of maintaining a favorable state of nutrition by outpatient administration of branched-chain amino acid (BCAA) granules.
Inclusion Criteria:
- patients who had undergone possibly curative hepatic resection for primary HCC with gross liver cirrhosis and kept low levels of serum albumin (<3.5 g/dL) 2 to 3 weeks after the procedure
Exclusion Criteria:
- tumor recurrence
Description of Study Protocol:
Recruitment
- patients in accordance with the inclusion/exclusion criteria were recruited between January 1999 and May 2002
Design
- Patients were randomized into two groups: those who received BCAA supplementation and a control group.
- Control patients ate their usual meals.
- BCAA group drank 4.74 g of Livact three times a day in addition to their usual meals for 1 year.
Livact composition: 4.74 g = 4 g BCAA (l-valine, 1144 mg; l-leucine, 1904 mg; l-isoleucine, 952 mg)
Blinding used (if applicable)
- unclear.
Intervention (if applicable)
Not applicable
Statistical Analysis
- data were analyzed by chi-squared test, Mann-Whitney U test, repeated measures analysis of variance, or unpaired Students' t test.
- P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Data Collection Summary:
Timing of Measurements
- After discharge from hospital, pts were followed up every 2 weeks for 1 year.
- Clinical features and biochemical parameters were measured at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 mo.
- Tumor recurrence was studied at 3 mo intervals
Dependent Variables
- Variable 1: brief description (how measured?)
- Variable 2: brief description (how measured?)
- etc
Independent Variables
Control Variables
Description of Actual Data Sample:
Initial N: BCAA, n=21; Control, n=22
Attrition (final N): BCAA, n=19; Control, n=22
Age:
- BCAA, 66.5 +/- 4.5 (male:female, 17:4)
- Control, 64.3 +/- 9.1 (male:female, 17:5)
Ethnicity:
- unknown
Anthropometrics
- pts were comparable in terms of age, sex, underlying liver disease, Child-Pugh grade, tumor size and TNM stage, and extent of liver resection (table 1)
Location:
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama Japan.
Summary of Results:
Findings:
- Of the 21 patients in the BCAA group, 2 patients withdrew due to tumor recurrence
- No significant difference in terms of Karnovsky's performance score or an anthropometric measurement, specifically weight.
- No significant difference in oral intake between the groups.
- No significant difference in the frequency of ascites and edema between the groups.
- No significant difference in hemoglobin concentration, platelet count, or liver function.
- Serum albumin returned to preoperative levels after 6 months in the BCAA group and after 9 months in the control group.
For specific bar graphs, please refer to the original article.
Author Conclusion:
"BCAA supplementation after hepatectomy promotes rapid improvement in protein metabolism and inhibits progression to liver cirrhosis. Administration of BCAA after hepatectomy is considered beneficial to a patient's nutritional status."
Funding Source:
University/Hospital: | Yokohama City Univesity |
Reviewer Comments:
- it is unclear whether there was blinding with patients and clinicians
- assessment of food intake and compliance is not described
- results are provided in predominantly bar graph format and difficult to determine exact numbers, must rely on author's commentary.
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
|
|||
Relevance Questions | |||
1. | Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
2. | Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? | Yes | |
3. | Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? | Yes | |
4. | Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
Validity Questions | |||
1. | Was the research question clearly stated? | Yes | |
1.1. | Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? | Yes | |
1.2. | Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? | Yes | |
1.3. | Were the target population and setting specified? | Yes | |
2. | Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? | Yes | |
2.1. | Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? | Yes | |
2.2. | Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? | Yes | |
2.3. | Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? | Yes | |
2.4. | Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? | Yes | |
3. | Were study groups comparable? | Yes | |
3.1. | Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) | Yes | |
3.2. | Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? | Yes | |
3.3. | Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) | Yes | |
3.4. | If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? | N/A | |
3.5. | If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) | N/A | |
3.6. | If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? | N/A | |
4. | Was method of handling withdrawals described? | Yes | |
4.1. | Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? | Yes | |
4.2. | Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) | Yes | |
4.3. | Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? | Yes | |
4.4. | Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? | Yes | |
4.5. | If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? | N/A | |
5. | Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? | ??? | |
5.1. | In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? | ??? | |
5.2. | Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) | ??? | |
5.3. | In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? | N/A | |
5.4. | In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? | N/A | |
5.5. | In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? | N/A | |
6. | Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? | Yes | |
6.1. | In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? | Yes | |
6.2. | In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? | N/A | |
6.3. | Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? | Yes | |
6.4. | Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? | Yes | |
6.5. | Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? | No | |
6.6. | Were extra or unplanned treatments described? | No | |
6.7. | Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? | N/A | |
6.8. | In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? | N/A | |
7. | Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? | Yes | |
7.1. | Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? | Yes | |
7.2. | Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? | Yes | |
7.3. | Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? | Yes | |
7.4. | Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? | Yes | |
7.5. | Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? | Yes | |
7.6. | Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? | No | |
7.7. | Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? | Yes | |
8. | Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? | Yes | |
8.1. | Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? | Yes | |
8.2. | Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? | Yes | |
8.3. | Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? | Yes | |
8.4. | Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? | N/A | |
8.5. | Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? | ??? | |
8.6. | Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? | Yes | |
8.7. | If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? | N/A | |
9. | Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? | ??? | |
9.1. | Is there a discussion of findings? | Yes | |
9.2. | Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? | No | |
10. | Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | ??? | |
10.1. | Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? | No | |
10.2. | Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? | ??? | |