Diet, HealthyPREDITIONNCT04545398
Acute Meat and Alternative Intake (PRotEin DIet SatisfacTION Trial 3)
A study testing Food. Beef, Pasture-raised, Food. Beef, Grain-fed and Food. Meat alternative in people with Diet, Healthy and Protein; Disease, run by University of Auckland, New Zealand at 1 site in New Zealand.
Trial summary
Introduction: Protein rich foods that are alternatives to farm-grown meat have received considerable consumer attention. Whilst meat alternatives were once niche food products aimed at vegetarians, they are increasingly marketed to omnivores and "flexitarians", thus contributing to a trend for reductions in red meat… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 20 to 34 years, men onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Diet, Healthy, Protein; Disease
- What is being tested?
- Food. Beef, Pasture-raised, Food. Beef, Grain-fed and Food. Meat alternative
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 30 participants
- Where
- 1 siteNew Zealand
- Study dates
- 1 Nov 2020to 20 Dec 2021
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 20 to 34 years
- Men only
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- All participants will be required to be omnivores willing to consume both red meat and plant-base alternatives for the purposes of the trial.
Who cannot join
- Those with chronic health conditions, hyperlipidaemia, obesity (BMI ≥ 30), use of medications (except occasional use of NSAIDs and antihistamines), history of anosmia and ageusia (issues with taste and smell), current dieting or disordered eating pattern and smoking tobacco or recreational drugs will be excluded from participating.
- Participants will be asked to complete an on-line screening which will include the Three-factor Eating Questionnaire-R18 (TFEQ) and a health survey. Participants with a TFEQ score greater than 75% will be excluded from participating on the basis their perception of food is potentially influenced by underlying psychological issues
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Acute Evidence of Digestive, Metabolic and Nutritional Differences in Beef and Meat- Analogue Meals
Introduction: Protein rich foods that are alternatives to farm-grown meat have received considerable consumer attention. Whilst meat alternatives were once niche food products aimed at vegetarians, they are increasingly marketed to omnivores and "flexitarians", thus contributing to a trend for reductions in red meat intakes [1]. Studies to date have addressed the environmental benefit, plus consumer perceptions and acceptability of meat alternatives [2, 3, 4], yet there is surprisingly a paucity of data compared the nutritional and digestive differences to meat. The aim of this trial is to compare the digestive consequences of pasture-fed and grain-finished, beef versus a plant-based meat analogue blinded meal.
Methods and analyses: Healthy, young (20-34 y) participants will be asked to consume three separate meals in a crossover, blinded investigation followed by five hours of blood testing and questionnaires to assess the digestive consequences of meat and a plant-based meat analogue. The three meals will include either pasture-fed, or grain-finished, or laboratory based protein alternative as a mixed meal, in random order, separated by one week minimum. Plasma samples will be assessed amino acid content, neurotransmitter proteins, chylomicron fatty acid distribution and general health indices.
Ethics and dissemination: The trial has been granted ethical approval by the Ministry of Health, Health and Disability Ethics Committee (Ref: 19/STH/226). All results originating from this study will be submitted for publication in scientific journals and presented at meetings.
Read the detailed description
Introduction: Red meat consumption contributes important nutrients to the diet, including essential amino acids, long chain and complex lipids, vitamins (including B12) and minerals (including iron and zinc) [5]. While supplying these important nutrients, red meat may contain components which may negate optimal health such as the saturated fat content and nitrates, that are added during processing [5]. The degree to which red meat affects health is likely related to its inherent nutritional profile, the quantity consumed and any processing (e.g. nitrates or cooking techniques). Regardless, the simple notion of a complex whole-food containing single nutrients which are 'good' or 'bad' for health is now considered overly simplistic [6]. For example, to reduce heart disease, nutritional guidelines now suggest an increase in polyunsaturated fats at the expense of saturated fat, rather than a complete reduction of all fats [6].
Alongside the controversy over the health consequences of red meat, recent attention has focused on the possibility of using "plant-based" proteins as an alternative to red meat consumption. The search for meat alternatives has resulted in a sharp increase in the production of novel "plant-based" meat analogues that have been designed to replicate the taste and eating experience of red-meat. To date there are very few studies addressing the nutritional differences between traditional red meat and plant-based meat analogues, and the nutritional differences that arise due to different production systems. Given the nutritional composition of red meat is likely to be influenced by the farming and feeding practices of the animals, production procedures and end-user cooking techniques [7], these differences need to be accounted for in the research design and application.
Aims: To investigate the digestive responses to an acute intake of pasture-fed beef, grain-finished beef, lamb and a plant based meat-analogue consumed as a component of a mixed meal. This study is part of a larger programme to understand the nutritional implications of consuming New Zealand, pasture-fed red meat as part of a balanced diet.
Study Design and Setting: The study is designed as randomised cross-over trial to capture biological difference in postprandial nutrient dynamics. Research subjects will act as their own controls and will consume each meal (pasture raised, grain-fed beef, lamb and a meat alternative meal) on a separate occasion in random order. The study compares exemplars of pasture-fed New Zealand beef, grain-finished New Zealand beef, lamb and a meat analogue. The plant-based meat analogue has been selected on the basis of its macronutrient profile (protein and fat) and appearance in order to that best matches that of meat.
The digestion and metabolism of key nutrients in beef will be measured immediately after the ingestion of a single meal. This experimental setting will also be used to examine some subjective qualities of the meal experience, such as satisfaction score (i.e., liking, satisfaction, enjoyment, satiety, appetite) and gastrointestinal score (i.e., comfort, fullness, bloating, rumbling, flatulence, faecal urgency, diarrhoea).
- Conditions
- Diet, Healthy, Protein; Disease
- Being tested
- Food. Beef, Pasture-raised, Food. Beef, Grain-fed, Food. Meat alternative, Food, Lamb
- Keywords
- protein, amino acid, diet, health, meat products, bioavailability
- Medical subject headings
- Disease
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Food. Beef, Pasture-raisedOther
Pasture-raised beef
Food. Beef, Grain-fedOther
Grain-fed beef
Food. Meat alternativeOther
Meat alternative
Food, LambOther
Lamb
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Pasture-raised | Experimental | The meal contains grass/pasture fed beef Receives: Other: Food. Beef, Pasture-raised |
| Grain-fed | Experimental | The meal contains grain-fed beef Receives: Other: Food. Beef, Grain-fed |
| Meat Alternative | Placebo comparator | The meal contains a meat alternative Receives: Other: Food. Meat alternative |
| Lamb | Experimental | The meal contains lamb Receives: Other: Food, Lamb |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
LCPUFA (18:2 n-6, 18:3 n-3, 20:4 n-6, 20:5 n-3, 22:5 n-3, 22:6 n-3
Chylomicron fatty acids, blood test
Measured: Change from baseline to 240-minutes post meal ingestion
Secondary outcomes (7)
Fatty acids (14:0, 16:0, 16:1 n-7, 18:0, 18:1 n-9, others)
Chylomicron fatty acids, blood test
Measured: Change from baseline to 240-minutes post meal ingestion
Amino acids/ Neurotransmitters
blood test
Measured: Change from baseline to 240-minutes post meal ingestion
Glucose/ Insulin
Blood test
Measured: Change from baseline to 240-minutes post meal ingestion
Minerals/ Iron
Blood test
Measured: Change from baseline to 240-minutes post meal ingestions
Fullness
Questionnaire (8 questions), Likert scale, non-directional answers
Measured: Change from baseline to 240-minutes post meal ingestion
Digestive Symptoms
Questionnaire (11 questions), Likert scale, higher score indicative of greater symptoms
Measured: Change from baseline to 240-minutes post meal ingestion
Meal Palatability
Questionnaire (5 questions), Likert scale, higher score indicative of greater palatability
Measured: Difference between intervention meals, 30 minutes post meal
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted11 Sep 2020
- Study start1 Nov 2020
- Primary completion30 Jan 2021
- Study completion20 Dec 2021
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (9)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Diet, HealthyStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Auckland, New Zealand
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Institute for Human Development and Potential (IHDP), Singapore, Massey University, AgResearch, The Riddet Institute
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Dr Andrea Braakhuis, University of Auckland, New Zealand
- Investigators
- Andrea J Braakhuis, PhD, Principal investigator, The University of Auckland
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04545398
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 5000927
- Other IDs
- U1111-1244-9426
- Acronym
- PREDITION
- Status last verified
- Nov 2023
- First submitted
- 12 May 2020
- Last updated
- 28 Nov 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: As yet there is no plan but we are open to sharing the data
Publications
1. Thakur A. Market for Plant-Based Meat Alternatives. Environmental, Health, and Business Opportunities in the New Meat Alternatives Market. IGI Global; 2019: 218-37.
Slade P. If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and cultured meat burgers. Appetite. 2018 Jun 1;125:428-437. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.02.030. Epub 2018 Mar 5.
PubMed 295016833. Circus VE, Robison R. Exploring perceptions of sustainable proteins and meat attachment. B Food J. 2019.
Keefe LM. #FakeMeat: How big a deal will animal meat analogs ultimately be? Anim Front. 2018 Jul 19;8(3):30-37. doi: 10.1093/af/vfy011. eCollection 2018 Jul. No abstract available.
PubMed 32002221Ekmekcioglu C, Wallner P, Kundi M, Weisz U, Haas W, Hutter HP. Red meat, diseases, and healthy alternatives: A critical review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2018 Jan 22;58(2):247-261. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2016.1158148. Epub 2017 Jun 28.
PubMed 27128451Forouhi NG, Krauss RM, Taubes G, Willett W. Dietary fat and cardiometabolic health: evidence, controversies, and consensus for guidance. BMJ. 2018 Jun 13;361:k2139. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k2139.
PubMed 29898882Hicks TM, Knowles SO, Farouk MM. Global Provisioning of Red Meat for Flexitarian Diets. Front Nutr. 2018 Jun 14;5:50. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2018.00050. eCollection 2018.
PubMed 29963555Pham T, Morton L, Gillies N, Bermingham E, Knowles S, Cameron-Smith D, Braakhuis AJ. Plasma chylomicron-rich lipidomic and fatty acid profile following a meat or analog meal in healthy males: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2025 Sep;122(3):770-779. doi: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.07.010. Epub 2025 Jul 15.
PubMed 40675490Pham T, Knowles S, Bermingham E, Brown J, Hannaford R, Cameron-Smith D, Braakhuis A. Plasma Amino Acid Appearance and Status of Appetite Following a Single Meal of Red Meat or a Plant-Based Meat Analog: A Randomized Crossover Clinical Trial. Curr Dev Nutr. 2022 May 4;6(5):nzac082. doi: 10.1093/cdn/nzac082. eCollection 2022 May.
PubMed 35669048
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 28 Nov 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Acute Evidence of Digestive, Metabolic and Nutritional Differences in Beef and Meat- Analogue Meals
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04545398
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PREDITION / 5000927
- Conditions
- Diet, Healthy, Protein; Disease
- Keywords
- protein, amino acid, diet, health, meat products, bioavailability
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Auckland, New ZealandUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Institute for Human Development and Potential (IHDP), Singapore, Massey University, AgResearch, The Riddet Institute
- Study start
- 1 Nov 2020 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Jan 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 20 Dec 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 11 Sep 2020 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Introduction: Protein rich foods that are alternatives to farm-grown meat have received considerable consumer attention. Whilst meat alternatives were once niche food products aimed at vegetarians, they are increasingly marketed to omnivores and "flexitarians", thus contributing to a trend for reductions in red meat intakes [1]. Studies to date have addressed the environmental benefit, plus consumer perceptions and acceptability of meat alternatives [2, 3, 4], yet there is surprisingly a paucity of data compared the nutritional and digestive differences to meat. The aim of this trial is to compare the digestive consequences of pasture-fed and grain-finished, beef versus a plant-based meat analogue blinded meal.
Methods and analyses: Healthy, young (20-34 y) participants will be asked to consume three separate meals in a crossover, blinded investigation followed by five hours of blood testing and questionnaires to assess the digestive consequences of meat and a plant-based meat analogue. The three meals will include either pasture-fed, or grain-finished, or laboratory based protein alternative as a mixed meal, in random order, separated by one week minimum. Plasma samples will be assessed amino acid content, neurotransmitter proteins, chylomicron fatty acid distribution and general health indices.
Ethics and dissemination: The trial has been granted ethical approval by the Ministry of Health, Health and Disability Ethics Committee (Ref: 19/STH/226). All results originating from this study will be submitted for publication in scientific journals and presented at meetings.
Detailed description
Introduction: Red meat consumption contributes important nutrients to the diet, including essential amino acids, long chain and complex lipids, vitamins (including B12) and minerals (including iron and zinc) [5]. While supplying these important nutrients, red meat may contain components which may negate optimal health such as the saturated fat content and nitrates, that are added during processing [5]. The degree to which red meat affects health is likely related to its inherent nutritional profile, the quantity consumed and any processing (e.g. nitrates or cooking techniques). Regardless, the simple notion of a complex whole-food containing single nutrients which are 'good' or 'bad' for health is now considered overly simplistic [6]. For example, to reduce heart disease, nutritional guidelines now suggest an increase in polyunsaturated fats at the expense of saturated fat, rather than a complete reduction of all fats [6].
Alongside the controversy over the health consequences of red meat, recent attention has focused on the possibility of using "plant-based" proteins as an alternative to red meat consumption. The search for meat alternatives has resulted in a sharp increase in the production of novel "plant-based" meat analogues that have been designed to replicate the taste and eating experience of red-meat. To date there are very few studies addressing the nutritional differences between traditional red meat and plant-based meat analogues, and the nutritional differences that arise due to different production systems. Given the nutritional composition of red meat is likely to be influenced by the farming and feeding practices of the animals, production procedures and end-user cooking techniques [7], these differences need to be accounted for in the research design and application.
Aims: To investigate the digestive responses to an acute intake of pasture-fed beef, grain-finished beef, lamb and a plant based meat-analogue consumed as a component of a mixed meal. This study is part of a larger programme to understand the nutritional implications of consuming New Zealand, pasture-fed red meat as part of a balanced diet.
Study Design and Setting: The study is designed as randomised cross-over trial to capture biological difference in postprandial nutrient dynamics. Research subjects will act as their own controls and will consume each meal (pasture raised, grain-fed beef, lamb and a meat alternative meal) on a separate occasion in random order. The study compares exemplars of pasture-fed New Zealand beef, grain-finished New Zealand beef, lamb and a meat analogue. The plant-based meat analogue has been selected on the basis of its macronutrient profile (protein and fat) and appearance in order to that best matches that of meat.
The digestion and metabolism of key nutrients in beef will be measured immediately after the ingestion of a single meal. This experimental setting will also be used to examine some subjective qualities of the meal experience, such as satisfaction score (i.e., liking, satisfaction, enjoyment, satiety, appetite) and gastrointestinal score (i.e., comfort, fullness, bloating, rumbling, flatulence, faecal urgency, diarrhoea).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 4
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Pasture-raised | Experimental | Other: Food. Beef, Pasture-raisedThe meal contains grass/pasture fed beef |
| Grain-fed | Experimental | Other: Food. Beef, Grain-fedThe meal contains grain-fed beef |
| Meat Alternative | Placebo comparator | Other: Food. Meat alternativeThe meal contains a meat alternative |
| Lamb | Experimental | Other: Food, LambThe meal contains lamb |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 20 to 34 years
- Sex
- Male only
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- All participants will be required to be omnivores willing to consume both red meat and plant-base alternatives for the purposes of the trial.
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Those with chronic health conditions, hyperlipidaemia, obesity (BMI ≥ 30), use of medications (except occasional use of NSAIDs and antihistamines), history of anosmia and ageusia (issues with taste and smell), current dieting or disordered eating pattern and smoking tobacco or recreational drugs will be excluded from participating.
- Participants will be asked to complete an on-line screening which will include the Three-factor Eating Questionnaire-R18 (TFEQ) and a health survey. Participants with a TFEQ score greater than 75% will be excluded from participating on the basis their perception of food is potentially influenced by underlying psychological issues
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Food. Beef, Pasture-raisedPasture-raised beef | Other | Pasture-raised |
| Food. Beef, Grain-fedGrain-fed beef | Other | Grain-fed |
| Food. Meat alternativeMeat alternative | Other | Meat Alternative |
| Food, LambLamb | Other | Lamb |
Primary outcome
LCPUFA (18:2 n-6, 18:3 n-3, 20:4 n-6, 20:5 n-3, 22:5 n-3, 22:6 n-3
Time frame: Change from baseline to 240-minutes post meal ingestion
Chylomicron fatty acids, blood test
7 secondary outcomes
Fatty acids (14:0, 16:0, 16:1 n-7, 18:0, 18:1 n-9, others)
Time frame: Change from baseline to 240-minutes post meal ingestion
Amino acids/ Neurotransmitters
Time frame: Change from baseline to 240-minutes post meal ingestion
Glucose/ Insulin
Time frame: Change from baseline to 240-minutes post meal ingestion
Minerals/ Iron
Time frame: Change from baseline to 240-minutes post meal ingestions
Fullness
Time frame: Change from baseline to 240-minutes post meal ingestion
Digestive Symptoms
Time frame: Change from baseline to 240-minutes post meal ingestion
Meal Palatability
Time frame: Difference between intervention meals, 30 minutes post meal
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 28 Nov 2023.
- Background1. Thakur A. Market for Plant-Based Meat Alternatives. Environmental, Health, and Business Opportunities in the New Meat Alternatives Market. IGI Global; 2019: 218-37.
- Background: PubMed 29501683Slade P. If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and cultured meat burgers. Appetite. 2018 Jun 1;125:428-437. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.02.030. Epub 2018 Mar 5.
- Background3. Circus VE, Robison R. Exploring perceptions of sustainable proteins and meat attachment. B Food J. 2019.
- Background: PubMed 32002221Keefe LM. #FakeMeat: How big a deal will animal meat analogs ultimately be? Anim Front. 2018 Jul 19;8(3):30-37. doi: 10.1093/af/vfy011. eCollection 2018 Jul. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 27128451Ekmekcioglu C, Wallner P, Kundi M, Weisz U, Haas W, Hutter HP. Red meat, diseases, and healthy alternatives: A critical review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2018 Jan 22;58(2):247-261. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2016.1158148. Epub 2017 Jun 28.
- Background: PubMed 29898882Forouhi NG, Krauss RM, Taubes G, Willett W. Dietary fat and cardiometabolic health: evidence, controversies, and consensus for guidance. BMJ. 2018 Jun 13;361:k2139. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k2139.
- Background: PubMed 29963555Hicks TM, Knowles SO, Farouk MM. Global Provisioning of Red Meat for Flexitarian Diets. Front Nutr. 2018 Jun 14;5:50. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2018.00050. eCollection 2018.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 40675490Pham T, Morton L, Gillies N, Bermingham E, Knowles S, Cameron-Smith D, Braakhuis AJ. Plasma chylomicron-rich lipidomic and fatty acid profile following a meat or analog meal in healthy males: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2025 Sep;122(3):770-779. doi: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.07.010. Epub 2025 Jul 15.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 35669048Pham T, Knowles S, Bermingham E, Brown J, Hannaford R, Cameron-Smith D, Braakhuis A. Plasma Amino Acid Appearance and Status of Appetite Following a Single Meal of Red Meat or a Plant-Based Meat Analog: A Randomized Crossover Clinical Trial. Curr Dev Nutr. 2022 May 4;6(5):nzac082. doi: 10.1093/cdn/nzac082. eCollection 2022 May.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. As yet there is no plan but we are open to sharing the data
Related trials for Diet, Healthy
Not yet recruiting
Testing a Smartphone App to Support a Mediterranean Diet and Strength Exercise
Treatment Adherence and Compliance, Resistance Exercise
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Ad Libitum Ultra-Processed Diet on Brain Dopamine in Humans
Healthy Volunteers
Recruiting
Nutrition Outcomes Using a Randomized Intervention Via Smartphone on Dietary Habits
Healthy Adult Participants, Mindful Eating Intervention
Not yet recruiting
Web-Based Sustainable Food Literacy Program for University Students
Food Literacy, Healthy Eating
Recruiting
Environmental Harm Menu Labels and Overall Dietary Quality
Food Choices
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Andrea J Braakhuis, PhD principal investigator
The University of Auckland
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Food. Beef, Pasture-raised, Food. Beef, Grain-fed and Food. Meat alternative in people with Diet, Healthy and Protein; Disease, run by University of Auckland, New Zealand at 1 site in New Zealand.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 28 Nov 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in New Zealand. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
LCPUFA (18:2 n-6, 18:3 n-3, 20:4 n-6, 20:5 n-3, 22:5 n-3, 22:6 n-3 (time frame: Change from baseline to 240-minutes post meal ingestion). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04545398, which also lists 9 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 28 Nov 2023.