Ilse Reinders
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Ilse Reinders has a total of 20 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Hanneke Anna Hendrikje Wijnhoven
Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2 shared publications - Marjolein Visser
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
2 shared publications - Anne Marie Beck
The Dietitians and Nutritional Research Unit, EATEN, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev-Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark
1 shared publication - Bart J. F. Keijser
Microbiology and Systems Biology, The Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Leiden, Netherlands
1 shared publication - Charlotte C. van Ruiten
Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Center Location VUmc, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
1 shared publication - Danit Rivkah Shahar
Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Community Health Sciences, Ben Gurion University of the Negev , Be’er Sheva
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
Effects of Nutritional Interventions in Older Adults with Malnutrition or at Risk of Malnutrition on Muscle Strength and Mortality: Results of Pooled Analyses of Individual Participant Data from Nine RCTs
Nutritional intervention studies in older adults with malnutrition aim to improve nutritional status. Although these studies show a significant gain in body weight, there is inconsistent evidence of clinical effectiveness on muscle strength and mortality. This study aimed to examine the effects of nutritional interventions on muscle strength and risk of mortality in older adults (malnourished or at risk) and explore whether these effects are influenced by participant characteristics. Individual participant data were used from nine RCTs (community setting, hospital and long-term care; duration 12–24 weeks and included oral nutritional supplements, dietary counseling, or both). Handgrip strength (HGS) was measured in seven RCTs and six RCTs obtained mortality data. A ≥3 kg increase in HGS was considered clinically relevant. Logistic generalized estimating equations analyses (GEE) were used to test intervention effectiveness. GEE showed no overall treatment effect (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78–1.59) on HGS. A greater, but not statistically significant, effect on HGS was observed for older (>80 years) versus younger participants. No significant treatment effect was observed for mortality (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.42–1.46). The treatment effect on mortality was greater but remained non-significant for women and those with higher baseline energy or protein intake. In conclusion, no effects of nutritional interventions were observed on HGS and mortality in older adults (malnourished or at risk). While the treatment effect was modified by some baseline participant characteristics, the treatment also lacked an effect in most subgroups.
Open AccessEffects of Nutritional Interventions in Older Adults with Malnutrition or at Risk of Malnutrition on Muscle Strength and Mortality: Results of Pooled Analyses of Individual Participant Data from Nine RCTs
Nutritional intervention studies in older adults with malnutrition aim to improve nutritional status. Although these studies show a significant gain in body weight, there is inconsistent evidence of clinical effectiveness on muscle strength and mortality. This study aimed to examine the effects of nutritional interventions on muscle strength and risk of mortality in older adults (malnourished or at risk) and explore whether these effects are influenced by participant characteristics. Individual participant data were used from nine RCTs (community setting, hospital and long-term care; duration 12–24 weeks and included oral nutritional supplements, dietary counseling, or both). Handgrip strength (HGS) was measured in seven RCTs and six RCTs obtained mortality data. A ≥3 kg increase in HGS was considered clinically relevant. Logistic generalized estimating equations analyses (GEE) were used to test intervention effectiveness. GEE showed no overall treatment effect (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78–1.59) on HGS. A greater, but not statistically significant, effect on HGS was observed for older (>80 years) versus younger participants. No significant treatment effect was observed for mortality (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.42–1.46). The treatment effect on mortality was greater but remained non-significant for women and those with higher baseline energy or protein intake. In conclusion, no effects of nutritional interventions were observed on HGS and mortality in older adults (malnourished or at risk). While the treatment effect was modified by some baseline participant characteristics, the treatment also lacked an effect in most subgroups.
- Open Access
Personalized Dietary Advice to Increase Protein Intake in Older Adults Does Not Affect the Gut Microbiota, Appetite or Central Processing of Food Stimuli in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Six-Month Randomized Controlled Trial
Expert groups argue to raise the recommended daily allowance for protein in older adults from 0.8 to 1.2 g/kg/day to prevent undernutrition. However, protein is thought to increase satiety, possibly through effects on gut microbiota and central appetite regulation. If true, raising daily protein intake may work counterproductively. In a randomized controlled trial, we evaluated the effects of dietary advice aimed at increasing protein intake to 1.2 g/kg adjusted body weight/day (g/kg aBW/day) on appetite and gut microbiota in 90 community-dwelling older adults with habitual protein intake intervention = 47, Ncontrol = 43). Food intake was determined by 24-h dietary recalls and gut microbiota by 16S rRNA sequencing. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans were performed in a subgroup of 48 participants to evaluate central nervous system responses to food-related stimuli. Both groups had mean baseline protein intake of 0.8 ± 0.2 g/kg aBW/day. At 6 months’ follow-up this increased to 1.2 ± 0.2 g/kg aBW/day for the intervention group and 0.9 ± 0.2 g/kg aBW/day for the control group. Microbiota composition was not affected, nor were appetite or brain activity in response to food-related stimuli. Increasing protein intake in older adults to 1.2 g/kg aBW/day does not negatively impact the gut microbiota or suppress appetite.
Open AccessPersonalized Dietary Advice to Increase Protein Intake in Older Adults Does Not Affect the Gut Microbiota, Appetite or Central Processing of Food Stimuli in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Six-Month Randomized Controlled Trial
Expert groups argue to raise the recommended daily allowance for protein in older adults from 0.8 to 1.2 g/kg/day to prevent undernutrition. However, protein is thought to increase satiety, possibly through effects on gut microbiota and central appetite regulation. If true, raising daily protein intake may work counterproductively. In a randomized controlled trial, we evaluated the effects of dietary advice aimed at increasing protein intake to 1.2 g/kg adjusted body weight/day (g/kg aBW/day) on appetite and gut microbiota in 90 community-dwelling older adults with habitual protein intake intervention = 47, Ncontrol = 43). Food intake was determined by 24-h dietary recalls and gut microbiota by 16S rRNA sequencing. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans were performed in a subgroup of 48 participants to evaluate central nervous system responses to food-related stimuli. Both groups had mean baseline protein intake of 0.8 ± 0.2 g/kg aBW/day. At 6 months’ follow-up this increased to 1.2 ± 0.2 g/kg aBW/day for the intervention group and 0.9 ± 0.2 g/kg aBW/day for the control group. Microbiota composition was not affected, nor were appetite or brain activity in response to food-related stimuli. Increasing protein intake in older adults to 1.2 g/kg aBW/day does not negatively impact the gut microbiota or suppress appetite.