| Literature DB >> 33917099 |
Silvia de la Cruz-Ares1,2, Francisco M Gutiérrez-Mariscal1,2, Juan F Alcalá-Díaz1,2, Gracia M Quintana-Navarro1,2, Alicia Podadera-Herreros1,2, Magdalena P Cardelo1,2, José D Torres-Peña1,2, Antonio P Arenas-de Larriva1,2, Pablo Pérez-Martínez1,2, Javier Delgado-Lista1,2, Elena M Yubero-Serrano1,2, José López-Miranda1,2.
Abstract
Evidence suggests that enriching a diet with plant-based proteins could reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus. In the present work, we evaluated the association between the change in plant protein intake (adjusted by energy) and incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in patients with coronary heart disease from the CORDIOPREV (coronary diet intervention with olive oil and cardiovascular prevention) study. At baseline and during the follow-up, patients underwent medical examination and blood and oral glucose tolerance tests. Information on patient's dietary intake was gathered by registered dietitians using a validated food frequency questionnaire. A total of 106 out of 436 nondiabetic patients at baseline developed type 2 diabetes mellitus after a median follow-up of 60 months. Cox regression analyses showed that patients who belonged to the group that increased plant protein intake exhibited a lower risk of developing the disease (HR = 0.64, (0.43-0.96)). Changes in plant protein intake were positively correlated with changes in carbohydrates, fibre, and legumes intake and negatively correlated with changes in saturated fatty acids intake. Results of the present study support the need of improving diet with plant-based proteins to prevent the onset of type 2 diabetes mellitus.Entities:
Keywords: cardiovascular disease; plant proteins; type 2 diabetes mellitus
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33917099 PMCID: PMC8067822 DOI: 10.3390/nu13041217
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Baseline characteristics of study participants according to the median of Δ in plant protein (percentage of energy (% E)) consumption.
| Variable | Decreased Plant Protein Intake | Increased Plant Protein Intake | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 218 | 218 | |
| Age (years) | 57.4 (0.6) | 58.1 (0.6) | 0.4315 |
| Men/women ( | 182/36 | 187/31 | 0.5953 |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 103.1 (0.7) | 101.8 (0.7) | 0.1961 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 30.6 (0.3) | 30.1 (0.3) | 0.2491 |
| TG (mg/dL) | 121.6 (4.2) | 122.8 (4) | 0.6761 |
| Total cholesterol (mg/dL) | 164 (2.4) | 159.1 (2) | 0.1673 |
| c-LDL (mg/dL) | 93.28 (1.81) | 90.79 (1.61) | 0.3964 |
| c-HDL (mg/dL) | 45.14 (0.77) | 43.56 (0.66) | 0.1420 |
| Apo A1 (mg/dL) | 136.4 (1.6) | 131.5 (1.4) | 0.0303 |
| Apo B (mg/dL) | 74 (1.3) | 71.1 (1.1) | 0.1306 |
| hs-CRP (mg/L) | 2.4 (0.1) | 2.1 (0.1) | 0.4369 |
| Glucose (mg/dL) | 94.1 (0.7) | 92.5 (0.7) | 0.1002 |
| HbA1c (%) | 5.94 (0.02) | 5.85 (0.02) | 0.0122 |
| Insulin (mU/L) | 9.05 (0.42) | 8.5 (0.42) | 0.3340 |
| HOMA-IR | 2.9 (0.1) | 2.6 (0.1) | 0.0148 |
| Treatment with statins, % | 83.7 | 90.4 | 0.0064 |
| Hypertension, % | 66.5 | 63.8 | 0.6153 |
| Current smoking, % | 8.25 | 6.9 | 0.7173 |
| Prior smoking, % | 67.0 | 70.2 | 0.5359 |
| Diet (Low-fat/Med diet) | 101/117 | 98/120 | 0.8475 |
Values expressed as mean (SEM). Δ, change; BMI, body mass index; TG: triglycerides; c-HDL: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; c-LDL: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; Apo A1: apolipoprotein A1; Apo B: apolipoprotein B; hs-CRP: high-sensitivity C-reactive protein; HbA1c: glycosylated haemoglobin; HOMA-IR: homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance. Continuous variables were analysed using t-test or Wilcoxon rank sum test for unpaired data when data did not fit the normal distribution. Categorical variables were analysed using χ2 test.
Figure 1Average plant protein consumption during 3 years of follow-up. Values are expressed as mean ± SEM. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, and * p < 0.05 for comparisons between groups at each visit. # p < 0.001 for comparisons with baseline in each group. Δ, change; E: energy, ns: not significant.
Mean baseline and after 1 year of intervention values in energy, nutrient, and food intake.
| Variable | Baseline | 1 Year of Follow-Up | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decreased Plant Protein Intake | Increased Plant Protein Intake | Between-Group Differences Postintervention | ||
| Energy, kcal/d | 2292.3 (24.1) | 1942.4 (34.4) *** | 1890.3 (25.3) *** | 0.3523 |
| Fat (%E) | 36.1 (0.2) | 36.9 (0.4) *** | 32.4 (0.5) *** | <0.001 |
| SFA (%E) | 8.7 (0.1) | 8.3 (0.1) | 6.9 (0.1) *** | <0.001 |
| SFA (% total fat) | 26.8 (0.2) | 24.92 (0.29) *** | 23.94 (0.26) *** | 0.0125 |
| MUFA (%E) | 17.7 (0.2) | 18.3 (0.3) *** | 15.8 (0.3) *** | <0.001 |
| MUFA (% total fat) | 54.2 (0.2) | 54.15 (0.49) | 53.65 (0.45) | 0.4511 |
| PUFA (%E) | 6.2 (0.1) | 6.9 (0.2) *** | 6.5 (0.1) | 0.0348 |
| PUFA (% total fat) | 19.0 (0.2) | 20.94 (0.47) ** | 22.42 (0.42) *** | 0.0186 |
| Protein (%E) | 18.2 (0.1) | 18.3 (0.2) | 18.0 (0.2) | 0.3046 |
| Vegetal protein (%E) | 5.0 (0.0) | 4.67 (0.06) *** | 6.15 (0.08) *** | <0.001 |
| Animal protein (%E) | 12.40 (0.1) | 12.87 (0.22) *** | 11.31 (0.17) *** | <0.001 |
| Carbohydrates (%E) | 42.5 (0.3) | 41.2 (0.5) *** | 46.5 (0.5) *** | <0.001 |
| Cholesterol (mg/d) | 327.1 (4.5) | 273.4 (6.1) *** | 234.4 (4.5) *** | <0.001 |
| Fibre, g/100 kcal | 1.1 (0.0) | 1.22 (0.02) ** | 1.48 (0.03) *** | <0.001 |
| Fruit, g/100 kcal | 16.3 (0.5) | 21.63 (0.77) *** | 22.36 (0.61) *** | 0.1664 |
| Vegetables, g/100 kcal | 11.5 (0.2) | 13.33 (0.44) ** | 13.51 (0.38) *** | 0.5681 |
| Legumes, g/100 kcal | 1.0 (0.0) | 1.1 (0.04) | 1.46 (0.06) *** | <0.001 |
| Tree nuts, g/100 kcal | 0.4 (0) | 0.41 (0.04) | 0.46 (0.04) | 0.2962 |
Values are expressed as mean (SEM). Δ, change; SFA: saturated fatty acids; MUFA: monounsaturated fatty acids; and PUFA: polyunsaturated fatty acids. Between-group differences were assessed using t-test or Wilcoxon rank sum test for unpaired data when data did not fit normal distribution, and within-group differences were assessed using paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test when data did not fit normal distribution. Within-group differences from baseline: ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2Correlogram of the upper triangular of the correlation matrix of the change in energy, nutrients, and food consumption (adjusted by energy) of 436 individuals from the CORDIOPREV (coronary diet intervention with olive oil and cardiovascular prevention) study after receiving dietary counselling. Figure shows correlations which p-values were <0.01. Positive correlations are displayed in blue and negative correlations in red, and colour intensity is proportional to the correlation coefficient. The ellipses have their eccentricity parametrically scaled to the correlation value. SFA: saturated fatty acids; MUFA: monounsaturated fatty acids; and PUFA: polyunsaturated fatty acids.
Figure 3Cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) (%). Cumulative incidence of T2DM (%) for two groups of patients: those with Δ in plant protein (%E) intake (changes produced between post- and pre-intervention) below the median and those above the median. Δ, change; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus; E: energy.
Hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) of T2DM incidence according to the median of Δ plant protein (%E) consumption.
| Increased Plant Protein Intake | Likelihood Ratio Test | |
|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted model | 0.6008 (0.4064–0.8883) | |
| Multivariable model 1 | 0.5981 (0.4043–0.8848) | |
| Multivariable model 2 | 0.6385 (0.4257–0.9578) |
Cox regression models were used to assess the risk of T2DM according to the median of Δ plant protein (%E) consumption. Multivariable model 1 was adjusted for age, sex, and intervention group. Model 2 was further adjusted for prevalence of hypertension, baseline levels of HDL, triglycerides, and BMI, statin use, smoking status (never, former or current smoker), and alcohol intake. Δ: change; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus; E: energy.