| Literature DB >> 30764511 |
Laura Chiavaroli1,2, Effie Viguiliouk3,4, Stephanie K Nishi5,6, Sonia Blanco Mejia7,8, Dario Rahelić9,10, Hana Kahleová11,12, Jordi Salas-Salvadó13,14, Cyril Wc Kendall15,16,17, John L Sievenpiper18,19,20,21.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) dietary pattern, which emphasizes fruit, vegetables, fat-free/low-fat dairy, whole grains, nuts and legumes, and limits saturated fat, cholesterol, red and processed meats, sweets, added sugars, salt and sugar-sweetened beverages, is widely recommended by international diabetes and heart association guidelines.Entities:
Keywords: DASH; GRADE; cardiometabolic health; cardiovascular disease; dietary approaches to stop hypertension; review
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30764511 PMCID: PMC6413235 DOI: 10.3390/nu11020338
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Literature search.
Figure 2Summary plot of the association between the DASH dietary pattern on risk of various chronic diseases in prospective cohort studies. The pooled risk estimate is represented by the diamond. P-values were determined using random effects modelling in each systematic review and meta-analysis. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed by the Cochran Q statistic, where P < 0.10 is considered statistically significant, and quantified by the I2 statistic, where I2 ≥ 50% is considered evidence of substantial heterogeneity [29]. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) of prospective cohort studies are rated as “Low” certainty of evidence and can be downgraded by five domains and upgraded by three domains. The filled black squares indicate downgrade and/or upgrades for each outcome. CHD = coronary heart disease; CI = confidence interval; CVD = cardiovascular disease; GRADE = Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation; NA = not applicable.
Summary of characteristics of included studies in most recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies assessing the effect of the DASH dietary pattern on chronic disease.
| Chronic Disease | Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis | Total no. of obs Studies | Total no. of Participants | Median no. Participants (Range) | Countries | Outcomes Assessed | Total no. of Incident Cases (Range) | Median Age, yr (Range) | Median Duration of Study, yr (Range) | Dietary Intake Assessments (at Baseline) | DASH Exposure Assessments | Method of Outcome Assessment | Funding Source ‡ | Risk of Bias Assessment ** |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVD | Schwingshackl et al., 2015 [ | 11 | 783,732 | 44,544 (2061–242,321) | 7 USA: 2 Sweden: 1 Italy: 1 China | 3 CHD incidence: 3 CVD mortality: 3 stroke incidence: 1 CVD incidence: 1 sudden cardiac death | 32,927 (123–15,497) | 60.5 (20–83) | 14.6 (7.9-24) | FFQ | 7 quintiles: 2 quartiles: 2 tertiles of DASH score | Record linkage | 8 Agency: 2 not reported: 1 Agency, Industry | 10 H: 1 Lo |
| CHD | Salehi-Abargouei et al., 2013 [ | 3 | 144, 337 | 348,827 (20,993–88,517) | 3 USA | 1 CHD morbidity and mortality: 1 CHD mortality: 1 fatal and nonfatal CHD | 7260 (430–6210) | 52 (30–69) | 16 (14.6-24) | FFQ | 3 quintiles | Record linkage | 3 Agency | 2 H: 1 Lo |
| Stroke | Salehi-Abargouei et al., 2013 [ | 3 | 150,191 | 40,681 (20,993–88,517) | 2 USA: 1 Italy | 1 stroke incidence: 1 stroke mortality: 1 fatal and nonfatal stroke | 4,413 (178–3999) | 52 (30–74) | 16 (7.9-24) | FFQ | 2 quintiles: 1 tertiles | Record linkage | 2 Agency: 1 Agency, Industry | 2 H: 1 Lo |
| Diabetes | Jannasch et al., 2017 [ | 5 | 158,408 | 21, 616 (822–89,195) | 4 US: 1 Europe (8 countries) | diabetes incidence | 23,612 (129–11, 217) | 58 (25–84) | 11.5 (5-20) | FFQ | 4 quintiles: 1 tertiles | 3 self-reported + record linkage: 1 independent assessment: 1 OGTT or DM med use | 4 Agency: 1 Agency, Industry | 4 H: 1 Lo |
‡ Agency funding is that from government, university or not-for-profit health agency sources. ** Newcastle Ottawa quality assessment Scale was used to assess risk of bias across the following domains: selection (four points), comparability (two points), and outcome (three points). A total score of six or greater was considered high-quality and a total score of five or smaller was considered low-quality. CHD, coronary heart disease; CVD, cardiovascular disease; obs, prospective cohort; DASH, dietary approaches to stop hypertension; DM, diabetes; H, High; Lo, Low; med, medication; obs, observational; OGTT, oral glucose tolerance test; yr, year.
Figure 3Summary plot of the effect of the DASH dietary pattern on cardiometabolic risk factors in controlled trials. Data are expressed as weighted mean differences with 95% CIs using random effects models in each systematic review and meta-analysis with the exception of HbA1c in which a fixed effects model was used due to the inclusion of <5 trials. To allow the pooled effect estimates for each end point to be displayed on the same axis, mean differences were transformed to standardized mean differences (SMDs). Pseudo-95% CIs for each transformed SMD were derived directly from the original mean difference and 95% CI. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed by the Cochran Q statistic, where P < 0.10 is considered statistically significant, and quantified by the I2 statistic, where I2 ≥ 50% is considered evidence of substantial heterogeneity [29]. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) of randomized controlled trials are rated as "High" certainty of evidence and can be downgraded by five domains. The filled black squares indicate downgrades for each outcome. *Due to the difference in directionality of HDL-C compared to the other outcomes with regards to signal for benefit or harm, the sign for the SMD was changed. ** Since no published systematic review and meta-analysis was retrieved from the search, we manually conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the DASH dietary pattern and HbA1c (Supplemental Tables S20–21 and Supplemental Figure S3). To convert Total-C, LDL-C, and HDL-C to mg/dL, multiply by 38.67; to convert TG to mg/dL, multiply by 88.57; to convert blood glucose to mg/dL, multiply by 18.02; to convert CRP to mg/L, multiply by 0.105. CI = confidence interval; CRP = C-reactive protein; GRADE = Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; HDL-C = high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol; HOMA-IR = Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance; LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol; MD = mean difference; NA = not available; SMD=standardized mean difference; TG = triglycerides; Total-C = total-cholesterol
Summary of characteristics of included trials in the most recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses of controlled trials assessing the effect of the DASH dietary pattern on cardiometabolic risk factors.
| Cardiometabolic Risk Factor | Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis | Total no. of Trials | Total | Median Sample Size (Range) | Metabolic Phenotypes: no. of Trials | Median Age, yr (Rangea) | Median Follow-up, wks (range) | Trial Design: no. of Trials | Countries: no. of Trials | Randomized: no. of Trials | Intervention: no. of Trials | Comparator: no. of Trials | Feeding/Compliance: no. of Trials | Rob: no. of Trials b |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blood Pressure (SBP + DBP) | Siervo et al., 2015 [ | 19 | 1, 918 | 37 (12–537) | 9 HTN: 3 PreHTN + HTN: 2 MetS: 1 GDM: 1 Norm: 1 OH, lean: 1 OB: 1 T2DM | 44.3 (30.1–59.2) | 8 (2–24) | 6 CO: 13 P | 12 USA: 4 Iran: 3 Australia | 16 Y: 3 N | 15 DASH alone: 2 weight loss DASH: 1 weight loss DASH + exercise: 1 behavioural intervention plus DASH | 10 usual diet: 2 low fat diet: 2 low antioxidant diet: 2 weight loss diet:1 behavioural intervention alone: 1 exercise alone: 1 usual GDM practice | 14 dietary advice: 4 metabolic: 1 dietary advice plus some supplemented foods | 11 U: 8 Lo |
| Total-C + LDL-C | Siervo et al., 2015 [ | 13 | 1, 673 | 54 (12–537) | 6 HTN: 2 PreHTN + HTN: 1 GDM: 1 Norm: 1 OH, Lean: 1 OB: 1 T2DM | 48.3 (30.1–59.2) | 4 (3–24) | 6 CO: 7 P | 8 USA: 3 Australia: 2 Iran | 10 Y: 3 N | 12 DASH alone: 1 behavioural intervention plus DASH | 7 usual diet: 2 low fat diet: 2 low antioxidant diet:1 behavioural intervention alone: 1 usual GDM practice | 10 dietary advice: 2 metabolic: 1 dietary advice plus some supplemented foods | 9 U: 4 Lo |
| HDL-C | Siervo et al., 2015 [ | 15 | 1, 749 | 54 (12–537) | 6 HTN: 2 PreHTN + HTN: 2 MetS: 1 GDM: 1 Norm: 1 OH, lean: 1 OB: 1 T2DM | 44.0 (30.1–59.2) | 8 (3–24) | 6 CO: 9 P | 8 USA: 4 Iran: 3 Australia | 12 Y: 3 N | 12 DASH alone: 2 weight loss DASH: 1 behavioural intervention plus DASH | 7 usual diet: 2 low fat diet: 2 low antioxidant diet: 2 weight loss diet:1 behavioural intervention alone: 1 usual GDM practice | 12 dietary advice: 2 metabolic: 1 dietary advice plus some supplemented foods | 11 U: 4 Lo |
| Triglycerides | Siervo et al., 2015 [ | 14 | 1, 654 | 44 (12–537) | 5 HTN: 2 PreHTN + HTN: 2 MetS: 1 GDM: 1 Norm: 1 OH, Lean: 1 OB: 1 T2DM | 42.6 (30.1–55.6) | 6 (3–24) | 6 CO: 8 P | 8 USA: 4 Iran: 2 Australia | 11 Y: 3 N | 11 DASH alone: 2 weight loss DASH: 1 behavioural intervention plus DASH | 7 usual diet: 1 low fat diet: 2 low antioxidant diet: 2 weight loss diet:1 behavioural intervention alone: 1 usual GDM practice | 12 dietary advice: 2 metabolic | 10 U: 4 Lo |
| HbA1c | Manual conductc | 2 | 65 | 33 (31–34) | 1 GDM: 1 T2DM | 42.6 (30.1–55.0) | 6 (4–8) | 1 CO: 1P | 2 Iran | 2 Y | 2 DASH alone | 2 usual diet | 2 dietary advice | 1 U: 1 Lo |
| Blood glucose | Siervo et al., 2015 [ | 10 | 826 | 27 (12–537) | 1 HTN: 2 PreHTN + HTN: 2 MetS: 1 GDM: 1 Norm: 1 OH, Lean: 1 OB: 1 T2DM | 40.8 (30.1–55.0) | 6 (3–24) | 5 CO: 5 P | 6 USA: 4 Iran | 8 Y: 2 N | 7 DASH alone: 2 weight loss DASH: 1 behavioural intervention plus DASH | 4 usual diet: 2 low antioxidant diet: 2 weight loss diet: 1 behavioural intervention alone: 1 usual GDM practice | 10 dietary advice | 7 U: 3 Lo |
| Fasting insulin | Shirani et al., 2013 [ | 11 | 760 | 15 (9–266) | 2 HTN: 4 PreHTN + HTN: 1 Norm: 1 OH: 1 OH, Lean: 2 OW/OB | 44.1 (34.3–51.8) | 4 (3–24) | 6 CO: 5 P | 10 USA: 1 UK | 6 Y: 5 N | 8 DASH alone: 3 behavioural intervention plus DASH | 6 usual diet: 2 low antioxidant diet: 3 advice only | 10 dietary advice: 1 dietary advice plus some supplemented foods | 7 U: 4 Lo |
| HOMA-IR | Shirani et al., 2013 [ | 8 | 603 | 14 (9–266) | 1 HTN: 3 PreHTN + HTN: 1 Norm: 1 OH: 1 OH, Lean: 1 OB | 39.7 (34.3–49.8) | 3.5 (3–24) | 6 CO: 2 P | 8 USA | 4 Y: 4 N | 6 DASH alone: 2 behavioural intervention plus DASH | 4 usual diet: 2 low antioxidant diet: 2 advice only | 8 dietary advice | 6 U: 2 Lo |
| Body weight | Soltani et al., 2016 [ | 11 | 1,211 | 54 (22–476) | 5 HTN: 2 MetS: 1 PreHTN + HTN: 1 HF patients: 1 OW/OB, NAFLD: 1 OW/OB, PCOS | 48.5 (30.1–62.0) | 16 (8–52) | 0 CO: 11 P | 4 USA: 4 Iran: 2 Australia: 1 Brazil | 11 Y: 0 N | 5 DASH alone: 4 weight loss DASH: 1 behavioural intervention Plus DASH: 1 DASH + LGI | 4 weight loss: 2 low fat: 2 usual diet: 1 behavioural intervention: 1 general HF recommendations: 1 standard low sodium HTN advice | 10 dietary advice: 1 dietary advice plus some supplemented foods | 6 U: 5 Lo |
| CRP | Soltani et al., 2017 [ | 6 | 451 | 42 (31–241) | 2 Hyperlipidemic: 1 Lean Norm + OB HTN: 1 OW/OB, NAFLD: 1 OW/OB, PCOS: 1 T2DM | 45.7 (30.1–55.0) | 8 (3–24) | 3 CO: 3 P | 3 Iran: 2 USA: 1 Canada | 16 Y: 0 N | 3 DASH alone: 2 weight loss DASH: 1 lacto-ovo vegetarian DASH | 2 weight loss: 1 usual diet: 1 usual plus fibre, potassium, magnesium: 1 healthy American: 1 Portfolio diet (plant-based with soy protein, viscous fibres and nuts) | 15 dietary advice: 1 metabolic | 3 U: 3 Lo |
A range represents the range of the mean age in the trials. b For ROB, an assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, including the evaluation of individual domains of risk of bias (sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants/personnel and outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting). Each of the five domains was evaluated as either low, high or unclear ROB and the overall ROB category was determined based on the most selected category. c Since no published systematic review and meta-analysis was retrieved from the search, we manually conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the DASH dietary pattern and HbA1c (Supplemental Tables S20–21 and Supplemental Figure S3). BMI, body mass index; BP, blood pressure; CO, crossover; CRP, C-reactive protein; DASH, dietary approaches to stop hypertension; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; DM, diabetes; F, female; F/U, follow-up; GDM, gestational diabetes; HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol; HF, heart failure; HTN, hypertensive; HOMA-IR, Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance; HTN, hypertension; L, lean; Lo, Low; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol; LGI, low glycemic index; M, male; meds, medication; MetS, metabolic syndrome; N, no; Norm, normotensive; NAFLD, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; OB, obese; OH, overall healthy; OW, overweight; P, parallel; PCOS, polycystic ovarian syndrome; PreHTN, prehypertensive; ROB, Risk of Bias; SBP, systolic blood pressure; SD, standard deviation; T2DM, type 2 diabetes; Total-C, total-cholesterol; U, unclear; W, women; wks, weeks; Y, yes; yr; year.