Cargando…

The Real-Life Use of a Protein-Sparing Modified Fast Diet by Nasogastric Tube (ProMoFasT) in Adults with Obesity: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Protein-sparing modified fast (PSMF) diet is a very-low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet administered to patients with obesity, which preserves lean mass and suppresses appetite as well as continuous enteral feeding. Thus, we aim to evaluate the effect of the PSMF diet administered continuous...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Formisano, Elena, Schiavetti, Irene, Gradaschi, Raffaella, Gardella, Paolo, Romeo, Carlotta, Pisciotta, Livia, Sukkar, Samir Giuseppe
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10674249/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38004217
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu15224822
Descripción
Sumario:Background: Protein-sparing modified fast (PSMF) diet is a very-low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet administered to patients with obesity, which preserves lean mass and suppresses appetite as well as continuous enteral feeding. Thus, we aim to evaluate the effect of the PSMF diet administered continuously by nasogastric tube (NGT) or orally. Methods: Patients with a body mass index (BMI) > 34.9 kg/m(2) were randomly assigned to receive a whey protein PSMF formula through NGT (ProMoFasT) or orally. Data were collected at baseline and after 150 days. The endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Results: We enrolled 20 patients in the ProMoFasT group and 24 in the oral group. No differences in body weight, BMI or waist circumference between the two groups were found after 150 days. At follow-up, FFM (%) and MM (%) results were higher in the ProMoFasT group than the oral group (63.1% vs. 52.9%, p = 0.012 and 45.0% vs. 36.1%, p = 0.009, respectively) and FM (kg) and FM (%) were significantly lower in the ProMoFasT group (36.9 kg vs. 44.0 kg, p = 0.033 and 37.4% vs. 44.9%, p = 0.012, respectively). Insulin levels were lower in the ProMoFasT group than the oral group at follow-up (11.8 mU/L vs. 28.0 mU/L, p = 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: The ProMoFasT is more effective in improving body composition and glucometabolic markers than the same diet administered orally.