Background: Pregnancy is a period in the life of women that is often associated with decreased daily physical activity and/or exercise. However, maintaining adequate levels of daily physical activity during pregnancy is important for mother and child. Studies suggest that moderate daily physical activity and exercise during pregnancy are associated with reductions in the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). However, at present, physical activity is not routinely advised to pregnant women at risk for gestational diabetes in the Netherlands. In FitFor2-study we aim to assess whether an exercise program can improve insulin sensitivity and fasting plasma glucose levels of women at high risk for gestational diabetes, assuming that this will lower their risk of gestational diabetes. Methods: The FitFor2-study is a randomised controlled trial. Women who visit one of the participating hospitals or midwifery practices and who are at risk for gestational diabetes are eligible to participate. After baseline measurement they are randomly allocated to in the intervention or control group. The intervention group receives an exercise program twice a week in addition to usual care. The exercise program consist of aerobic and strength exercises and takes place under close supervision of a physiotherapist. Data are collected at 15, 24 and 32 weeks of pregnancy and 12 weeks after delivery. Primary maternal outcome measures are fasting plasma glucose and relative increase in insulin resistance. Primary neonatal outcome is birth weight. Secondary outcome measures are: maternal serum triglycerides, HDL, cholesterol, HbA1c, maternal weight gain during pregnancy, maternal physical activity level, foetal growth. Discussion: If the FitFor2 intervention program proves to be effective, obstetricians and midwives should refer women at risk for GDM to a special exercise program. Exercise programs for pregnant women under supervision of an experienced trainer are already available in the Netherlands, and these programs could be adjusted easily for this target group. Furthermore, the costs of these programs should be refunded by including them in the basic health care cost reimbursement schemes. Trial registration: NTR1139

Background: Although vitamin D may have both protective and symptomatic effects in Parkinson’s disease (PD), the evidence is scarce and not well understood. Also, 25-hydroxyvitamin D (vitamin D) is suggested to play a neuroprotective and neurotrophic role in the brain. Therefore, this review investigates the relationship between vitamin D and PD. Objective: Investigate the evidence for a relationship between vitamin D and PD by summarizing observational and interventional studies in humans, as well as relevant experimental studies. Methods: A systematic search was made in the Medline, Cochrane and Embase databases (from inception to March 2014). All identified titles were independently evaluated by two reviewers. Articles were selected based on the presence of PD-related outcome data. Included were observational studies (including genetic studies) and interventional studies in humans, as well as relevant animal studies. Results: A total of 20 studies (14 observational, 1 interventional and 5 rodent studies) were selected for analysis. Eight observational studies showed that serum 25(OH) D levels tend to be low in PD. One observational study indicated that low serum 25(OH) D may worsen automatic postural responses and one interventional study suggested that vitamin D supplementation can prevent worsening (based on the Hoehn and Yahr rating scale). Studies in rodent models of PD showed a protective effect of vitamin D treatment on dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra. Results of genetic studies on the association between vitamin D receptor polymorphisms and the risk of PD were contradictory. Conclusion: The literature supports possible protective and symptomatic effects of vitamin D in PD. However, more observational and interventional studies in humans are needed to confirm and further elucidate the suggested beneficial effect of vitamin D on PD.

Objective: To estimate the occurrence of familial Paget's disease of bone in The Netherlands, to examine the prevalence of mutations of the sequestosome 1 gene (SQSTM1) in identified families, and to assess potential genotype–phenotype associations.Methods: We performed a case–control study of patients with Paget's disease and a mutation analysis of the SQSTM1 gene of index patients with familial disease and of the relatives of those with a mutation. Serum alkaline phosphatase (AP) activity was assessed, and bone scintigraphy was performed.Results: Five percent of patients had at least 1 first‐degree relative with the disease, compared with 0.5% of the controls (relative risk 10; 95% confidence interval 1.3–75.6). In 38.9% of patients with familial disease, heterozygous mutations in the SQSTM1 gene were identified. These were the previously described P392L mutation, which was present in 22.2% of patients, and 3 new mutations, S399P, G425R, M404T, 9 of which were present in 3 different families. All mutations were located in the ubiquitin‐associated domain of the gene. There was a relationship between serum AP activity, as a marker of the disease, and the presence or absence of the G425R and P392L mutations, the subject's age, and the presence of Paget's disease.Conclusion: Our data provide further evidence of a causal role of SQSTM1 gene mutations in the pathogenesis of Paget's disease and allow the design of a strategy based on measurements of serum AP activity and age for investigating asymptomatic relatives of patients with familial Paget's disease of bone.

Background: Low serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations have been associated with insulin resistance, the metabolic syndrome, and type 2 di

Aims/hypothesis Traditional blood glucose lowering agents do not prevent the progressive loss of beta cell function in patients with type 2 diabetes. The dipeptidylpeptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor vildagliptin improves beta cell function both acutely and chronically (up to 2 years). Whether this effect persists after cessation of treatment remains unknown. Here, we assessed the insulin secretory capacity in drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes after a 52 week treatment period with vildagliptin or placebo, and again after a 12 week washout period. Methods This study was conducted at a single university medical centre, and was a double-blind, randomised clinical trial in 59 drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes and mild hyperglycaemia to either vildagliptin 100 mg (n = 29) or placebo (n = 30). Randomisation was performed by a validated 1:1 system. Neither patient, nor caregiver, was informed about the assigned treatment. Inclusion criteria were drug-naive patients ≥30 years, with HbA_1c ≤7.5% and BMI of 22–45 kg/m². The mildly hyperglycaemic patient population was chosen to minimise glucose toxicity as a confounding variable. Beta-cell function was measured during an arginine-stimulated hyperglycaemic clamp at week 0, week 52 and after a 12 week washout period. All patients with at least one post-randomisation measure were analysed (intent-to-treat). Results Fifty-two week vildagliptin 100 mg (n = 26) treatment increased the primary efficacy variable, combined hyperglycaemia and arginine-stimulated C-peptide secretion (AIR_arg), by 5.0 ± 1.8 nmol/l × min, while it decreased by 0.8 ± 1.8 nmol/l × min with placebo (n = 25) (between-group difference p = 0.030). No significant between-group difference in AIR_arg was seen after the 12 week washout period. The between-group difference adjusted mean 52 week changes from baseline was −0.19 ± 0.11, p = 0.098 and −0.22 ± 0.23%, p = 0.343 for HbA_1c and fasting plasma glucose, respectively. There were no suspected drug treatment-related serious adverse events. Conclusions/interpretation One year treatment with vildagliptin significantly increased beta cell secretory capacity. This effect was not maintained after the washout, indicating that this increased capacity was not a disease modifying effect on beta cell mass and/or function. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00260156 Funding: This study was sponsored by the Novartis Pharmaceutical Cooperation.