| Literature DB >> 32635569 |
Man-Yun Li1, Jin-Hua Chen2,3,4, Chiehfeng Chen5,6,7,8, Yi-No Kang7,8,9,10.
Abstract
The association of egg consumption and serum cholesterol concentrations in healthy people has been discussed for a long time. In this study, we aimed to explore association of egg consumption with on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) concentrations and the LDL-c/HDL-c ratio through meta-analysis. This systematic review only included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating egg consumption in healthy populations without combination therapy. We extracted mean and standard deviation for LDL-c/HDL-c ratio, LDL-c/HDL-c. The extracted data were pooled in a random-effects model and were presented as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Moreover, subgroup analyses were conducted for understanding effects of more egg consumption (MEC) on different intervention periods, egg-consumption levels, classification of responders. Overall, 17 RCTs met the eligibility criteria and pooled results showed MEC group had a higher LDL-c/HDL-c ratio than the control group (MD = 0.14, p = 0.001, I2 = 25%). The MEC group also had higher LDL-c than the control group (MD = 8.14, p < 0.0001, I2 = 18%). Moreover, for the subset of intervention over two months, the MEC group seemed to have a larger effect size than the subset of intervention within two months. This synthesis, the largest meta-analysis on this topic, shows the impact of egg consumption on lipid profiles among healthy subjects. Notably, longer time with MEC may lead to higher LDL-c/HDL-c ratio and LDL-c. However, RCTs with long tern follow-up are needed to guarantee the association between egg consumption and human health.Entities:
Keywords: Keywords egg consumption; high-density lipoprotein; low-density lipoprotein
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32635569 PMCID: PMC7400894 DOI: 10.3390/nu12071995
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Flowchart of the systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines.
Characteristics of patients in the included studies.
| Trial | Male/Female | Age Range | Intervention | Duration | Result (↑: increased concentration; ↓: decreased concentration) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Egg Group | Control | |||||
| Missimer et al. (2017) [ | 24/26 | 18–30 | 2 eggs/day | Oatmeal | 28 days | LDL-c↑; HDL-c↑ |
| Baumgartner et al. (2013) [ | 34/63 | 18–65 | One extra egg | Regular diet | 84 days | TC↑; LDL-c↑ |
| Rueda et al. (2013) [ | 27/46 | 17–20 | 1 egg/day | No egg | 28 days | Statistically insignificant change |
| Harman et al. (2008) [ | 14/31 | 18–55 | 2 eggs/day | No egg | 84 days | Statistically insignificant change |
| Mutungi et al. (2008) [ | 28/0 | 40–70 | 3 eggs/day | No egg | 84 days | HDL-c↑ |
| Wal et al. (2008) [ | 10/63 | 25–60 | 2 eggs/day | Regular diet | 56 days | Statistically insignificant change |
| Waters et al. (2007) [ | 0/22 | 50–77 | 3 eggs/day | No egg | 30 days | TC↑; HDL-c↑; LDL-c↑ |
| Herron et al. (2006) [ | 40/51 | 21–43 | 3 eggs/day | Egg substitute | 30 days | TC↑; HDL-c↑; LDL-c↑ |
| Greene et al. (2006) [ | 13/29 | 50–80 | 3 eggs/day | Egg substitute | 30 days | HDL-c↑; LDL-c↑ |
| Goodrow et al. (2006 [ | 7/26 | 60–96 | 1 egg/day | Egg substitute | 35 days | Statistically insignificant change |
| Katz et al. (2005) [ | 30/19 | 36–73 | 2 eggs/day | Oatmeal | 42 days | Statistically insignificant change |
| Ballesteros et al. (2004) [ | 25/29 | 8–12 | 2 eggs/day | Egg white | 30 days | LDL-c↑; HDL-c↑ |
| Chakrabarty et al. (2004) [ | 22/12 | 19–32 | 1 egg/day | No egg | 56 days | TC↑; LDL-c↑; TC/HDL-c↑ |
| Ginsberg et al. (1995) [ | 0/13 | 22–31 | 3 eggs/day1 egg/day | No egg | 56 days | TC↑; HDL-c↑; LDL-c↑ |
| Ginsberg et al. (1994) [ | 24/0 | 22–31 | 1 egg/day2 eggs/day4 eggs/day | No egg | 56 days | TC↑; LDL-c↑ |
| Garwin et al. (1992) [ | 42/56 | 41–48 | 12 eggs/week | No egg | 42 days | TC↓; HDL-c↓; LDL-c↓ |
| Sacks et al. (1984) [ | 4/13 | 18–24 | 1 egg/day | No egg | 21 days | LDL-c↑ |
Figure 2Forest plot of LDL-c/HDL-c ratio. For studies that the lipid levels were reported separately, we presented in different rows in forest plots. (a) hypo-responder group; (b) hyper-responder group; (c) men group; (d) women group; (e) one-egg group; (f) two-eggs group; (g) ≥ three-eggs group; blue: p < 0.05. Blue refers to statistical significance in pooled analysis.
Figure 3Forest plot of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (mg/dL). For studies that the lipid levels were reported separately, we presented in different rows in forest plots. (a) hypo-responder group; (b) hyper-responder group; (c) men group; (d) women group; (e) one-egg group; (f) two-eggs group; (g) ≥ three-eggs group; blue: p < 0.05. Blue refers to statistical significance in pooled analysis.
Figure 4Forest plot of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (mg/dL) for studies that the lipid levels were reported separately, we presented in different rows in forest plots. (a) hypo-responder group; (b) hyper-responder group; (c) men group; (d) women group; (e) one-egg group; (f) two-eggs group; (g) ≥ three-eggs group. Black diamond refers to no statistical significance in pooled analysis.
Subgroup analysis.
| Outcome/ | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subgroup | Studies | Patients | MD | 95% CI | I-Square |
| LDL-c/HDL-c ratio | |||||
| 1 egg | 5 | 226 | 0.20 | −0.01–0.42 | 59% |
| 2 eggs | 5 | 320 | 0.13 | 0.01–0.26 | 13% |
| ≥ 3 eggs | 5 | 339 | 0.09 | −0.02–0.20 | 0% |
| LDL-c | |||||
| 1 egg | 6 | 266 | 8.37 | 1.06–15.69 | 22% |
| 2 eggs | 5 | 320 | 7.32 | 2.20–12.44 | 0% |
| ≥ 3 eggs | 5 | 339 | 9.87 | 2.09–17.65 | 42% |
| HDL-c | |||||
| 1 egg | 6 | 276 | 0.28 | −2.85–3.42 | 0% |
| 2 eggs | 5 | 320 | 0.35 | −2.35–3.04 | 0% |
| ≥ 3 eggs | 5 | 339 | 2.55 | 0.16–4.94 | 0% |