Underpowered or negative? A crucial distinction. Reply to Dollerup OL, Treebak JT, Jessen N [letter]
- 84 Downloads
KeywordsClinical trial Human NAD+ metabolism
To the Editor: Jessen and colleagues  have commented on our recent review of NAD+ metabolism in Diabetologia . In their letter, they comment on the discussion and citation of a clinical trial that they performed, in which dietary nicotinamide riboside was supplemented in obese men to assess the effects on whole body insulin sensitivity .
We concede to the argument made by Jessen and colleagues that it is important to make a clear distinction between endpoints when citing clinical trials, as this may otherwise lead to unwanted assumptions regarding the endpoint(s) that are discussed. In our review, we did not have the intention to suggest that the study by Dollerup et al  was underpowered for its primary endpoint, insulin sensitivity, but unfortunately omitted to add ‘for these secondary endpoints’, for which we do apologise. Nevertheless, the overall message and conclusion of our review does not change and we agree with Jessen and colleagues that more human studies are needed to test the efficacy of dietary supplements in rigorously designed human clinical trials.
All authors were responsible for drafting the article and revising it critically for important intellectual content. All authors approved the version to be published.
Duality of interest
The authors declare that there is no duality of interest associated with this manuscript.
- 1.Dollerup OL, Treebak JT, Jessen N (2019) Underpowered or negative? A crucial distinction. Diabetologia. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-019-4853-x
- 2.Connell NJ, Houtkooper RH, Schrauwen P (2019) NAD+ metabolism as a target for metabolic health: have we found the silver bullet? Diabetologia. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-019-4831-3