| Literature DB >> 33806342 |
Kuan-Lin Yeh1, Amber Kautz2, Barbara Lohse3, Susan W Groth1.
Abstract
Elevated inflammation in pregnancy has been associated with multiple adverse pregnancy outcomes and potentially an increased susceptibility to future chronic disease. How maternal dietary patterns influence systemic inflammation during pregnancy requires further investigation. The purpose of this review was to comprehensively evaluate studies that assessed dietary patterns and inflammatory markers during pregnancy. This review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses. Included studies were sourced from EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus and evaluated using The Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Inclusion criteria consisted of human studies published in English between January 2007 and May 2020 that addressed associations between dietary patterns and inflammatory markers during pregnancy. Studies focused on a single nutrient, supplementation, or combined interventions were excluded. A total of 17 studies were included. Despite some inconsistent findings, maternal diets characterized by a higher intake of animal protein and cholesterol and/or a lower intake of fiber were shown to be associated with certain pro-inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF- α), IL-8, serum amyloid A (SAA), and glycoprotein acetylation (GlycA)). Future studies that explore a broader range of inflammatory markers in the pregnant population, reduce measurement errors, and ensure adequate statistical adjustment are warranted.Entities:
Keywords: diet; dietary patterns; inflammation; inflammatory markers; pregnancy
Year: 2021 PMID: 33806342 PMCID: PMC8000934 DOI: 10.3390/nu13030834
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Literature was searched in September 2018 and updated in May 2020. The included studies were published from 2007 to May 2020.
Characteristics of the studies examining the relationship between diet and inflammatory biomarkers.
| Study Design | Reference -Country/Sample Size | Maternal Age | Health Status and | Dietary Exposure | Dietary Assessment Tool (FFQ Reference Period) | Time of Blood Collection | Examined Inflammatory Markers | Main Findings | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prospective cohort study | de Oliveira et al., 2015 | 115 | 20–40 | Healthy; | Glycemic load (GL) ≥ median | A 73-item FFQ (a 12-month reference period) [ | (Fasting) blood sample at 3 timepoints (weeks 5–13, 20–26, 30–36 of gestation) | CRP | Dietary glycemic load was negatively associated with CRP concentrations (β = –0.203; 95% CI, –0.380 to –0.026, |
| Lindsay et al., 2018 | 202 | >18 | Healthy during the first or early second trimester | Anti-/pro- inflammatory diet | Interviewer administered 24-h dietary recalls collected at mean week 12.9 ± 1.7, 20.5 ± 1.4, and 30.4 ± 1.4 of gestation. | Day 6 of each assessment period at 10–12 weeks, 20–22 weeks, 30–32 weeks of gestation | TNF-α | The DII scores ranged from –4.3 to 3.7 using 32 food parameters. DII was positively associated with TNF-α (β = 0.093, 95% CI: 0.023–0.163, | |
| McCullough et al., 2017 | 1057 | ≥18 | Ethnically diverse; | Anti-/pro- inflammatory diet | FFQ (a 6-month reference period) during peri-conceptional stage) at 3-time points: enrollment (median ~ 12 weeks), the second trimester (diet in the first trimester), between 36 weeks of gestation to delivery (diet in the last 2 trimesters), and at delivery as needed. | The blood sample was taken before 12 weeks of gestation | INFγ, IL-12, IL-17A, IL-1β, IL-4, IL-6, and TNF-α | The E-DII scores ranged from –5.00 to 4.96 using 27 food parameters. The correlation between maternal E-DII and circulating cytokines was not significant ( | |
| Moore et al., 2018 | 511 | ≥16 | Healthy singleton pregnancy; | Anti-/pro- inflammatory diet | One ASA24 per month. At least one per participant. Visits in early pregnancy (median 17 weeks of gestation), mid-pregnancy (median 27 weeks of gestation), and at delivery (median 1 day after delivery) | Blood sample at 27 weeks of gestation | IL-6, hs-CRP | The DII scores ranged from –4.4 to 4.0 using 28 food parameters. For each 1 unit increase in the DII, a 0.12 mg/L increase in IL-6 levels was detected at 27 weeks of gestation (95% CI, 0.01–0.24; | |
| Study Design | Reference -Country/Sample Size | Maternal Age | Health Status and | Dietary Exposure | Dietary Assessment Tool (FFQ Reference Period) | Time of Blood Collection | Examined Inflammatory Markers | Main Findings | |
| Prospective cohort study | Scholl et al., 2011 | 520 | Teenage and 19–32 [ | Healthy; | The proportion of multiple dietary components | Two 24 dietary recalls at entry into prenatal care and at weeks 20–28 of gestation | (GCT) at entry into prenatal care | hs-CRP | Higher intakes of protein ( |
| Sen et al., 2016 | 1808 | 32.2 ± 5.0 | Non-diabetic at median 9.9 weeks of gestation | Anti-/pro- inflammatory diet | A 146-item FFQ and 33 items for a supplement intake assessment | (GCT) at weeks 22–31 of gestation | CRP | The DII scores ranged from –5.4 to 3.7 using 28 food parameters. Higher DII was associated with higher plasma CRP in the second trimester (β = 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02–0.14). | |
| Yang et al., 2020 | 307 | 28.5 ± 3.4 | Healthy with normal BMI; | Anti-/pro- inflammatory diet | Dietary recall for three consecutive days since the date of enrollment around 16–20 weeks of pregnancy. | (Fasting) after dietary assessment in the second trimester | hs-CRP | The odds of having high levels of hs-CRP in pro-inflammatory diet group were 1.89 times greater than the odds of having high levels of hs-CRP in the anti-inflammatory diet group (95% CI: 1.05, 3.42, | |
| Randomized controlled clinical trial | Asemi et al., 2013 | 32 | 18–40 | GDM; | DASH | Three-day food diaries throughout 4-week intervention period (24–28 weeks of gestation). | (Fasting) blood sample at 24–28 weeks of gestation and after 4-week intervention period | hs-CRP | Difference in mean change of serum hs-CRP between DASH and control diet was not significant ( |
| Study Design | Reference -Country/Sample Size | Maternal Age | Health Status and | Dietary Exposure | Dietary Assessment Tool (FFQ Reference Period) | Time of Blood Collection | Examined Inflammatory Markers | Main Findings | |
| Randomized controlled clinical trial | Garcia-Rodriguez et al., 2012 | 123 | 18–40 | Healthy; | Twice a week (150 g/portion) of salmon | A 100-item FFQ (a 12-week reference period) [ | (Fasting) blood sample at week 20, weeks 32–34 of gestation and at week 38 of gestation | IL-8, IL-6, TNF-α, HGF, NGF, MCP-1 | Inflammatory and vascular homeostasis biomarkers were not affected by the intake of farmed salmon ( |
| Khoury et al., 2007 | 290 | 21–38 | Healthy, non-smoking; | Anti-atherogenic diet (low in saturated fat and cholesterol) | Weighed recordings of intake from baseline weeks 17–20 to week 36 of gestation. | Blood sample at weeks 17–20, week 24, week 30, and week 36 of gestation | hs-CRP, sCAMs (sVCAM-1, sICAM-1 and | None of the biomarkers were influenced by the intervention (low saturated fat/low cholesterol diet) compared to the control group (usual diet) ( | |
| Markovic et al., 2016 (GI baby3) | 139 | >18 | At high risk of GDM; | Low glycemic index (LGI) | Two 3-day food records collected at weeks 14–20 and 36 of gestation and three 24-hour dietary recalls as dietary compliance measure collected at weeks 18–24, 22–28, 26–32 of gestation; five dietary consultations from weeks 14–20 through 34–36 of gestation. | (Fasting) at mean week 17.4 ± 2 and at week 36 of gestation | CRP | Difference in CRP between the low glycemic diet group and high fiber group was not significant at the end of the intervention period ( | |
| Cross-sectional | Hrolfsdottir ^ et al., | 671 | 29 ± 4 | Healthy; | Protein intake and distribution between animal and plant sources | A 3-item self-administered FFQ combined with an interview (a 3-month reference period) [ | Blood sample at week 30 of gestation | hs-CRP, SAA, IL-6, IL-8, IL-1β, TNF-α | Women in the highest compared to the lowest quintile of animal protein intake had 25% (95% CI: 2–53, |
| Study Design | Reference -Country/Sample Size | Maternal Age | Health Status and | Dietary Exposure | Dietary Assessment Tool (FFQ Reference Period) | Time of Blood Collection | Examined Inflammatory Markers | Main Findings | |
| Cross-sectional | Papazian et al., 2019 | 100 | 18–40 | Healthy singleton pregnancy; | Mediterranean diet adherence | A 157-item FFQ (12 categories of food groups; unspecified reference period) and one 24-hour recall collected between 14 and 27 weeks of gestation. | (Fasting) blood collection in the second trimester of pregnancy | CRP | Higher Mediterranean diet score was associated with lower CRP levels. MFP (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.82–0.99, |
| Roytio et al. #, 2017 | 100 | 30.1 ± 4.7 | Overweight and obese; | Three groups: low fiber/moderate fat | One 3-day food diary per participant within the week before the study visit. | (Fasting) at mean week 13.3 ± 2.4 of gestation | hs-CRP, GlycA | Recommended dietary intake (DRI) of total fat and fiber was associated with lower levels of GlycA. Correlations between fiber total and GlycA were significant ( | |
| Shin et al., 2017 | 561 | 20–44 | NHANES samples at mean 5.35 ± 0.4 months of gestation | Anti-/pro- inflammatory diet | Single 24-hour dietary recall in the second trimester. | Blood sample in the second trimester | CRP | The DII scores ranged from –4.98 to 4.14 using 27 food parameters. DII was not associated with CRP ( | |
| Study Design | Reference -Country/Sample Size | Maternal Age | Health Status and | Dietary Exposure | Dietary Assessment Tool (FFQ Reference Period) | Time of Blood Collection | Examined Inflammatory Markers | Main Findings | |
| Cross-sectional | Walsh et al. *, 2014 | 621 | ≥18 | Secondigravid whose baby had macrosomia (birth weight > 4000 g) [ | Low glycemic index (LGI) advice | A five-point Likert-type scale as an adherence measure at week 34 of gestation. | (Fasting) blood sample at mean week 13.8 ± 2.4 and 28 weeks of gestation | TNF-α, IL-6 | Differences between those who did and those who did not receive low-GI dietary advice were not significant with respect to the concentrations of serum TNF-α or IL-6 in early pregnancy (prior to the intervention) or at 28 weeks of gestation ( |
| Case-control | Vahid et al., 2017 | 135 | 20–45 | With a history of 3 or more miscarriages after week 20 of gestation | Anti-/pro- inflammatory diet | A 168-item FFQ (a 12-month reference period [ | Unspecified | IL-6, CRP | The DII scores ranged from –0.50 to 2.70 using 31 food parameters. For every 1 unit increase in DII, a corresponding increase in IL-6 by 0.15 pg/mL was detected (95% CI: <0.01–0.28, |
Note: ASA24, Automated Self-Administered 24-hour Dietary Recall; BMI, body mass index; DII, Dietary Inflammatory Index; DRI, dietary reference intakes; E-DII, Energy-Adjusted Dietary Inflammatory Index; FFQ, Food Frequency Questionnaire; GCT, glucose challenge test; GlycA, glycoprotein acetylation; HGF, hepatocyte growth factor (cytokine); sICAM-1, soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1; IFNγ, interferon gamma (cytokine); IL-6, interleukin-6; IL-1β, interleukin-1β; MCP-1, monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (chemokines); MDS, Mediterranean Diet Score; MDScale, Mediterranean Diet Scale; MedDietScale, the Mediterranean Diet Score; MFP, Mediterranean Food Pattern; NGF, nerve growth factor; NHANES, The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; SAA, serum amyloid A; sCAMs, soluble cell adhesion molecules; SMQD, Short Mediterranean Diet Questionnaire; TNF-α, tumor necrosis factor-α; sVCAM-1, soluble vascular adhesion molecule-1. ^ Cross-sectional analysis of a cohort study. # An exploratory analysis of an observational study. * Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.
Quality of the included studies assessed by the quality assessment tool for quantitative studies.
| Study Design | First Author, Year | Selection Bias | Study Design | Confounders | Blinding | Data Collection Methods | Withdrawals/ Dropouts | Global Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prospective cohort studies | de Oliveira et al., 2015 [ | m | m | s | w | m | s | Moderate |
| Lindsay et al., 2018 [ | m | m | s | w | s | m | Moderate | |
| McCullough et al., 2017 [ | m | m | s | w | s | s | Moderate | |
| Moore et al., 2018 [ | m | m | s | w | s | m | Moderate | |
| Scholl et al., 2011 [ | s | m | s | w | s | m | Moderate | |
| Sen et al., 2016 [ | m | m | s | w | s | s | Moderate | |
| Yang et al., 2020 [ | m | m | m | w | s | s | Moderate | |
| Intervention studies | Asemi et al., 2013 [ | s | s | s | s | s | s | Strong |
| Garcia-Rodriguez et al., 2012 [ | m | s | s | m | m | s | Strong | |
| Khoury et al., 2007 [ | m | s | s | m | w | m | Moderate | |
| Markovic et al., 2016 [ | w | s | s | m | s | s | Moderate | |
| Cross-sectional studies | Hrolfsdottir ^ et al., 2016 [ | m | m | s | w | m | m | Moderate |
| Papazian et al., 2019 [ | m | m | w | w | s | s | Weak | |
| Roytio # et al., 2017 [ | w | m | w | w | s | s | Weak | |
| Shin et al., 2017 [ | m | m | s | s | m | m | Strong | |
| Walsh * et al., 2014 [ | m | m | s | w | s | s | Moderate | |
| Case–control studies | Vahid et al., 2017 [ | m | m | m | w | s | m | Moderate |
Notes: Global rating (criteria): strong (no weak rating), moderate (one weak rating), and weak (two or more weak rating) [65]. ^ Cross-sectional analysis of a cohort study. # An exploratory analysis of an observational study. * Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.