| Literature DB >> 33461965 |
Anat Yaskolka Meir1, Ehud Rinott1, Gal Tsaban1,2, Hila Zelicha1, Alon Kaplan1, Philip Rosen3, Ilan Shelef3, Ilan Youngster4, Aryeh Shalev2, Matthias Blüher5, Uta Ceglarek6, Michael Stumvoll5, Kieran Tuohy7, Camilla Diotallevi7,8, Urska Vrhovsek8, Frank Hu9,10,11, Meir Stampfer9,10,11, Iris Shai12,9.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of green-Mediterranean (MED) diet, further restricted in red/processed meat, and enriched with green plants and polyphenols on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), reflected by intrahepatic fat (IHF) loss.Entities:
Keywords: epidemiology; fatty liver; magnetic resonance imaging; nutrition
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33461965 PMCID: PMC8515100 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-323106
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gut ISSN: 0017-5749 Impact factor: 23.059
Figure 1Flow chart of the Dietary Intervention Randomized Controlled Trial Polyphenols Unprocessed study. HDG, healthy dietary guidelines; MED, Mediterranean.
Baseline characteristics of the DIRECT PLUS participants*
| Entire | HDG | MED | Green-MED | P value between groups† | |
| IHF content, %‡ | 6.6 (3.5, 15.1) | 7.0 (3.4, 15.1) | 5.9 (3.8, 14.9) | 7.7 (3.1, 17.8) | 0.62 |
| NAFLD (IHF>5%), %‡ | 62 | 63 | 60 | 62 | 0.88 |
| Obese§, % | 58.8 | 60.2 | 59.2 | 57.1 | 0.91 |
| Diabetic¶, % | 10.9 | 10.3 | 9.3 | 13.3 | 0.65 |
| Anthropometric | |||||
| Age, years | 51.1±10.5 | 51.10±10.6 | 51.68±10.4 | 50.55±10.8 | 0.76 |
| Men, number (%) | 259 (88.1) | 86 (87.8) | 86 (87.8) | 87 (88.8) | 0.97 |
| BMI, kg/m2† | 31.3±4.0 | 31.2±3.8 | 31.3±4.0 | 31.3±4.2 | 0.99 |
| Weight, kg | 93.7±14.3 | 92.9±14.7 | 94.5±13.5 | 93.6±14.9 | 0.73 |
| Waist circumference, cm | 109.7±9.5 | 109.9±10.3 | 110.0±9.5 | 109.3±8.7 | 0.86 |
| Men | 110.6±9.1 | 110.7±10.1 | 110.7±9.3 | 110.4±8.0 | 0.97 |
| Women | 103.3±9.6 | 103.8±9.7 | 105.2±9.6 | 100.8±9.9 | 0.56 |
| Diastolic-BP, mm Hg | 81.1±10.2 | 80.2±11.3 | 81.7±8.8 | 81.3±10.4 | 0.53 |
| Systolic-BP, mm Hg | 130.3±14.0 | 130.2±14.3 | 130.1±12.5 | 130.4±15.2 | 0.99 |
| Blood biomarkers | |||||
| HDL, mg/dL | 46.0±11.7 | 45.4±11.5 | 47.1±11.1 | 45.4±12.4 | 0.51 |
| Men | 44.3±10.2 | 43.4±9.9 | 46.1±10.1 | 43.3±10.7 | 0.13 |
| Women | 58.6±13.9 | 59.6±12.6 | 54.4±15.7 | 62.0±13.4 | 0.42 |
| LDL, mg/dL | 125.7±30.1 | 126.8±32.3 | 127.0±31.0 | 123.3±29.2 | 0.64 |
| TG/HDL ratio** | 3.0 (2.0, 4.5) | 3.1 (2.0, 4.8) | 2.9 (2.0, 4.6) | 2.9 (2.0, 4.3) | 0.53 |
| Cholesterol/HDL ratio | 4.4±1.3 | 4.4±1.2 | 4.3±1.3 | 4.4±1.4 | 0.82 |
| Fasting glucose, mg/dL** | 98.4 (92.3, 106.3) | 98.4 (91.9, 105.4) | 98.1 (92.4, 106.3) | 98.9 (92.4, 107.8) | 0.86 |
| Insulin, µU/mL** | 13.0 (9.7, 18.9) | 13.0 (9.7, 18.9) | 13.3 (10.2, 17.8) | 12.9 (9.3, 18.1) | 0.33 |
| HOMA IR** | 3.2 (2.3, 4.6) | 3.1 (2.2, 4.9) | 3.2 (2.5, 4.4) | 3.2 (2.2, 4.5) | 0.53 |
| hsCRP, mg/L** | 2.5 (1.5, 4.2) | 2.3 (1.3, 4.4) | 2.6 (1.6, 4.3) | 2.4 (1.3, 4.2) | 0.58 |
| Liver enzymes and adipokines | |||||
| ALT, U/L | 34.9±16.8 | 34.9±20.1 | 33.1±12.5 | 35.7±16.8 | 0.56 |
| AST, U/L | 25.6±7.7 | 25.9±8.6 | 25.2±6.5 | 25.8±7.9 | 0.91 |
| ALT/AST ratio | 1.3±0.4 | 1.4±0.4 | 1.3±0.4 | 1.4±0.4 | 0.60 |
| ALKP, mg/dL | 74.2±19.3 | 73.7±17.3 | 73.4±18.2 | 75.4±22.1 | 0.98 |
| Chemerin, ng/mL | 207.9±43.5 | 205.9±44.1 | 208.5±43.6 | 209.4±43.1 | 0.81 |
| FGF 21, pg/mL | 203.0±142.2 | 196.8±125.3 | 201.8±162.9 | 210.4±136.7 | 0.76 |
| Leptin, ng/mL | 14.3±12.0 | 13.7±12.2 | 15.0±12.3 | 14.3±11.5 | 0.44 |
*Values are presented as mean±SD for continuous variables (unless indicated otherwise), and as number and/or % for categorical variables.
†P values according to ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables and χ2 for categorical variables.
‡Of 269 available H-MRS.
§BMI ≥30 kg/m2.
¶Presence of diabetes was defined for participants with baseline fasting plasma glucose levels ≥126 mg/dL or haemoglobin-A1c levels ≥6.5% or if regularly treated with oral antihyperglycaemic medications or exogenous insulin.
**Values presented as median (p25, p75).
ALKP, alkaline phosphatase; ALT, alanine transaminase; ANOVA, analysis of variance; AST, aspartate transaminase; BMI, body mass index; BP, blood pressure; FGF, fibroblast growth factor; HDG, heathy dietary guidelines; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; H-MRS, proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy; hsCRP, high sensitivity C reactive protein; IHF, intrahepatic fat; HOMA IR, homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance; LDL, Low-density lipoprotein; MED, Mediterranean; NAFLD, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; TG, triglycerides.
Figure 2(A–C)18-month changes in weight and intrahepatic fat. (A) 18-month absolute change in weight between intervention groups (ITT analysis, n=294). (B)18-month changes in IHF% between intervention groups (ITT analysis, adjusted p values for age, sex and baseline IHF%; n=269). (C) Illustrative MRI: a comparison of two male participants, similar age (46 years) and similar baseline WC (105 cm). Participant A was randomly assigned to the MED groups; participant B was assigned to the green-MED group. Both participants lost about 12% of their initial weight after 18 months and reported consuming at least 5–6 time/week walnuts (reported on 28 g/time). Total plasma polyphenol levels at the end of the intervention were higher in the green-MED participant versus MED participant (0.67 mg/L vs 0.24 mg/L). *Significant within-group change versus baseline at 0.05 level. Colour liver images were generated using pride software (by Philips). HDG, healthy dietary guidelines; IHF, intrahepatic fat; ITT, intention to treat; MED, Mediterranean; WC, waist circumference.
Figure 3Changes in IHF across tertiles/categories of dietary components. Mankai shake and green tea tertiles are calculated from the weighted mean of consumption reported after 6 and 18 months of intervention. serum folate tertiles (of 18-month change in serum folate): T1≤−0.41; T2=−0.40 to 1.46; T3≥1.47; Mankai shake tertiles: T1≤1.67/week; T2=1.68 to 3.00/week; T3≥3.01/week; green tea tertiles: T1≤2/day; T2=2.01 to 3.67/day; T3≥3.68/day; walnut consumption categories: low: 0 to 1–3 times/month; medium: 1–2/week to 3–4/week; high: more than 5–6/week. Categories intervention group distribution for walnuts: low consumption: 60% MED, 40% green-MED; medium consumption: 45% MED, 55% green-MED; high consumption: 45% Med, 55% green-MED. Specific between tertiles/consumption group p values are corrected for multiple comparisons. # none of the participants reported on more processed meat. IHF, intrahepatic fat; MED, Mediterranean; T1, lowest tertile; T2, intermediate tertile; T3, highest tertile.
Associations between 18-month intrahepatic fat change and 18-month anthropometric parameters and blood biomarkers changes
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||
| Beta coefficient | P value | Beta coefficient | P value | Beta coefficient | P value | |
| Anthropometric | ||||||
| ∆Weight |
|
| – | – | ||
| ∆Waist circumference |
|
| – | – | ||
| ∆Systolic BP |
|
| 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.15 |
| ∆Diastolic BP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Glycaemic biomarkers | ||||||
| ∆Glucose |
|
| 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.15 |
| ∆HOMA IR |
|
|
|
| 0.04 | 0.49 |
| ∆Insulin |
|
|
|
| 0.03 | 0.54 |
| Lipid biomarkers | ||||||
| ∆Triglycerides |
|
|
|
| 0.11 | 0.056 |
| ∆Cholesterol | 0.08 | 0.30 | 0.08 | 0.16 | 0.04 | 0.41 |
| ∆HDL | − |
| − |
| −0.11 | 0.07 |
| ∆LDL | 0.04 | 0.51 | 0.05 | 0.40 | 0.03 | 0.61 |
| ∆TG/HDL ratio |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ∆Cholesterol/HDL ratio |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Liver enzymes and hepatokines | ||||||
| ∆ALT |
|
|
|
| 0.1 | 0.089 |
| ∆AST |
|
| 0.08 | 0.12 | 0.07 | 0.18 |
| ∆ALT/AST ratio |
|
|
|
| 0.10 | 0.069 |
| ∆ALKP | 0.03 | 0.69 | −0.001 | 0.95 | −0.008 | 0.88 |
| ∆FGF21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Adipokines and inflammation | ||||||
| ∆Chemerin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ∆Leptin |
|
| 0.06 | 0.36 | −0.08 | 0.18 |
| ∆hsCRP |
|
|
|
| 0.09 | 0.089 |
Model 1: adjusted for age, sex, baseline IHF% and intervention group.
Model 2: adjusted for age, sex, baseline IHF% intervention group, and 18-month waist circumference change.
Model 3: adjusted for age, sex, baseline IHF%, intervention group and 18-month weight change.
ALKP, alkaline phosphatase; ALT, alanine transaminase; AST, aspartate transaminase; BP, blood pressure; FGF, fibroblast growth factor; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; HOMA IR, homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance; hsCRP, high sensitivity C reactive protein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; TG, triglycerides.
Figure 4(A–D) Intrahepatic fat and the gut microbiome. (A) Gut microbiome composition (beta diversity) and IHF% at baseline. Gut microbiome composition and IHF, shown by principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) of UniFrac distances between all baseline samples. Colours denotes 1st (grey) 2nd (yellow) and 3rd (brown) IHF% tertiles. 95% SE ellipses are shown for each tertile. Boxplots on the right describe PCo1 score by IHF% tertile. (B) Gut microbiome composition change and IHF% change. Correlation between principal component 5 (PCo5), the principal coordinate most highly correlated with IHF change (Y axis), and 18-month change in intrahepatic fat. Colours denotes lifestyle intervention group allocation. Boxplots on the right describe PCo5 score by IHF% lifestyle intervention group. (C) Mediation analysis: assessing the proportional mediatory effect of microbiome composition change (measured as PCo5) in the association between lifestyle intervention and IHF% change. (D) Stepwise identification of genus level bacteria associated with: IHF% at baseline (top, two selected bacteria), IHF% 18-month change (middle, heatmap) and with lifestyle intervention (bottom, bar plot, selected bacteria). IHF, intrahepatic fat.