| Literature DB >> 34835937 |
Tracy Bonsu Osei1, Anne-Marieke van Dijk2, Sjoerd Dingerink2, Felix Patience Chilunga3, Erik Beune3, Karlijn Anna Catharina Meeks3,4, Silver Bahendeka5, Matthias Bernd Schulze6,7, Charles Agyemang3, Mary Nicolaou3, Adriaan Georgius Holleboom2, Ina Danquah1,6.
Abstract
The Fatty Liver Index (FLI) is a proxy for the steatotic component of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). For sub-Saharan African populations, the contribution of dietary factors to the development of NAFLD in the etiology of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remains to be clarified. We identified sex-specific dietary patterns (DPs) related to the FLI using reduced ranked regression (RRR) and evaluated the associations of these DPs with T2DM. This analysis used data from the RODAM, a multi-center cross-sectional study of Ghanaian populations living in Ghana and Europe. The daily intake frequencies of 30 food groups served as the predictor variables, while the FLI was the response variable. The odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for T2DM were calculated per one standard deviation increase in the DP score using logistic regression. In males, the DP score explained 9.9% of the variation in their food intake and 16.0% of the variation in the FLI. This DP was characterized by high intakes of poultry, whole-grain cereals, coffee and tea, condiments, and potatoes, and the chance of T2DM was 45% higher per 1 DP score-SD (Model 2). Our results indicate that the intake of modernized foods was associated with proxies of NAFLD, possibly underlying the metabolic pathways to developing T2DM.Entities:
Keywords: dietary pattern; fatty liver index; non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; reduced rank regression; type 2 diabetes mellitus
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34835937 PMCID: PMC8620643 DOI: 10.3390/nu13113679
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Characteristics and biomarkers of the RODAM study population by sex and site 1.
| Characteristics | Total | Men | Women | Rural Ghana | Urban Ghana | Amsterdam | Berlin | London |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex (female%) | 63.0 | - | - | 61.6 | 72.2 | 60.1 | 45.0 | 59.0 |
| Age (years) | 46.1 ± 11.1 | 46.9 ± 11.3 | 45.6 ± 10.9 | 46.7 ± 12.6 | 45.3 ± 11.4 | 46.6 ± 8.5 | 45.2 ± 10.4 | 47.9 ± 10.9 |
| Education | ||||||||
| Never or elementary% | 37.6 | 21.9 | 46.9 | 56.8 | 43.9 | 35.5 | 9.3 | 9.1 |
| Low | 37.7 | 41.6 | 35.5 | 31.6 | 38.9 | 37.8 | 50.1 | 31.6 |
| Intermediate | 16.2 | 22.5 | 12.5 | 7.9 | 12.5 | 21.8 | 26.6 | 24.8 |
| Higher vocational | 8.5 | 14.1 | 5.2 | 3.7 | 4.71 | 5.0 | 14.0 | 34.5 |
| Length of stay (years) | - | - | - | - | - | 16.4 ± 8.1 | 17.0 ± 10.9 | 17.2 ± 11.0 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 26.7 ± 5.5 | 24.8 ± 4.4 | 27.8 ± 5.7 | 22.7 ± 4.3 | 26.9 ± 5.4 | 28.9 ± 5 | 27.6 ± 4.8 | 29.4 ± 4.8 |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 89.5 ± 12.5 | 87 ± 12.1 | 91 ± 12.5 | 81.2 ± 10.9 | 89.4 ± 11.8 | 94.6 ± 11.6 | 92.2 ± 11.5 | 95.4 ± 11.3 |
| Smoking (current or former%) | 9.3 | 19.6 | 3.2 | 7.9 | 6.9 | 11.6 | 18.4 | 5.4 |
| Physical activities (MET-min/day) | 72 (14–168) | 96 (28–196) | 56 (10–156) | 90 (36–161) | 60 (6–156) | 88.7 (26–258) | 72 (12–198) | 28 (5–112) |
| Total energy intake (kcal/day) | 2533 ± 837 | 2628 ± 827 | 2477 ± 817 | 2594 ± 828 | 2298 ± 661 | 2478 ± 854 | 2929 ± 944 | 2898 ± 953 |
| Carbohydrate intake (energy%) | 53.0 ± 9.1 | 52.2 ± 9.5 | 53.5 ± 8.9 | 56.4.5 ± 8.3 | 54.5 ± 8.1 | 50.5 ± 8.3 | 48.5 ± 10.9 | 50.2 ± 9.6 |
| Fat intake (energy%) | 32.2 ± 8.2 | 32 ± 8.6 | 32.3 ± 8 | 31.4 ± 7.3 | 31.6 ± 7.2 | 32.1 ± 8.3 | 33.7 ± 10.6 | 34.1 ± 9.6 |
| Protein intake (energy%) | 13.8 ± 2.9 | 13.9 ± 3.1 | 13.8 ± 2.9 | 11.5 ± 2.2 | 13.6 ± 2.4 | 15.8 ± 2.7 | 14.8 ± 3.1 | 15.1 ± 2.9 |
| Alcohol intake (g/day) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0 |
| AST U/L | 32.3 | 35.1 | 30.6 | 36.1 | 34.4 | 26.1 | 28.9 | 34.1 |
| ALT U/L | 19.2 | 23.0 | 17.6 | 19.2 | 19.3 | 17.4 | 19.9 | 22.5 |
| GGT U/L | 30.8 | 37.4 | 27.9 | 29.5 | 31.4 | 30.2 | 32.9 | 30.6 |
| CRP mg/L | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Total cholesterol (mmol/L) | 5.0 ± 1.1 | 4.9 ± 1.1 | 5.1 ± 1.1 | 4.6 ± 1.1 | 5.2 ± 1.2 | 5.0 ± 1.1 | 5.1 ± 1.1 | 5.0 ± 1.0 |
| LDL-cholesterol (mmol/L) | 3.2 ± 1.0 | 3.1 ± 1.0 | 3.2 ± 1.0 | 2.8 ± 1.0 | 3.4 ± 1.0 | 3.2 ± 0.9 | 3.2 ± 1.0 | 3.3 ± 0.9 |
| HDL-cholesterol (mmol/L) | 1.3 ± 0.4 | 1.3 ± 0.4 | 1.3 ± 0.4 | 1.2 ± 0.4 | 1.3 ± 0.3 | 1.4 ± 0.3 | 1.5 ± 0.4 | 1.3 ± 0.3 |
| Triglycerides (mmol/L) | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.8 |
| Fatty Liver Index | 2.6 ± 6.3 | 2.0 ± 5.4 | 2.9 ± 6.8 | 1.0 ± 3.2 | 2.8 ± 6.7 | 3.3 ± 7.2 | 3.1 ± 7.3 | 3.1 ± 6.0 |
1 Continuous variables are expressed as means ± SDs or medians (IQR). Categorical variables are expressed as percentages (%). AST: aspartate aminotransferase; ALT: alanine aminotransferase; CRP: C-reactive protein; GGT: gamma-glutamyl transferase; HDL: high-density lipoprotein; LDL: low-density lipoprotein.
Figure 1Mean intakes and standard deviations (g/day) of (a) 16 food groups with a mean intake of ˃50 g/day and (b) 14 food groups with a mean intake of ≤50 g/day.
Percentage of explained variation in food intake and factor loadings of 30 food groups of the RRR-derived dietary pattern scores related to the FLI for males and females 1.
| Food Group | Men ( | Women ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explained Variation (%) | Factor Loading | Explained Variation (%) | Factor Loading | |
| Poultry |
|
|
|
|
| Whole-grain cereals |
|
|
|
|
| Coffee and tea |
|
|
|
|
| Condiments |
|
|
|
|
| Potatoes |
|
| 2.1 | 0.10 |
| Alcoholic beverages |
|
|
|
|
| Margarine |
|
|
|
|
| Olive oil | 7.7 | 0.16 | 0.4 | 0.04 |
| Processed meat | 7.2 | 0.16 | 0.3 | 0.04 |
| Other oils | 5.5 | 0.14 | 2.4 | 0.11 |
| Dairy products | 4.9 | 0.13 | 0.4 | 0.04 |
| Sodas and juices | 3.8 | 0.11 | 1.8 | 0.10 |
| Cakes and sweets | 3.4 | 0.11 | 0.6 | −0.05 |
| Red meat | 2.6 | 0.09 | 0.0 | 0.01 |
| Vegetables | 2.5 | 0.09 | 5.2 | 0.16 |
| Sweet spreads | 1.7 | 0.08 | 0.0 | −0.01 |
| Cooking fats | 1.5 | 0.07 | 0.2 | −0.03 |
| Eggs | 1.3 | 0.07 | 2.1 | −0.10 |
| Rice and pasta | 1.1 | 0.06 | 1.7 | 0.09 |
| Vegetable soups, stews and sauces | 0.9 | 0.06 | 0.0 | −0.01 |
| Nuts and seeds | 0.5 | 0.04 | 1.5 | 0.09 |
| Fish | 0.1 | 0.02 |
|
|
| Meat mixed dishes | 2.1 | −0.08 | 1.3 | −0.08 |
| Fruits | 4.1 | −0.12 | 1.6 | −0.09 |
| Legumes | 4.8 | −0.13 | 2.4 | −0.11 |
| Vegetarian mixed dishes | 7.2 | −0.16 | 0.9 | −0.07 |
| Fermented maize products |
|
|
|
|
| Refined cereal |
|
|
|
|
| Roots, tubers and plantains |
|
|
|
|
| Palm oil |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
1 Factor loadings are correlations between food groups and the dietary pattern scores. Figures in bold represent food items with relevant contributions to the dietary pattern score (≥0.20% explained variation in the factor loadings for either males or females).
Associations of the FLI-related and RRR-derived dietary pattern scores with type 2 diabetes among males and females 1.
| Model | Odds Ratio (95% Confidence Interval) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Per 1 Score-SD | ||
|
| |||||||
| Diabetes/Control | 17/256 | 22/251 | 31/243 | 46/227 | 43/230 | ||
| Crude | 1 (reference) | 1.32 (0.69, 2.54) | 1.92 (1.06, 3.56) | 3.05 (1.70, 5.47) | 2.82 (1.56, 5.07) | <0.0001 | 1.55 (1.30, 1.86) |
| Model 1 | 1 (reference) | 1.41 (0.71, 2.79) | 1.79 (0.90, 3.56) | 2.30 (1.07, 4.97) | 1.97 (0.89, 4.35) | 0.11 | 1.34 (1.04, 1.73) |
| Model 2 | 1(reference) | 1.25 (0.62, 2.49) | 1.58 (0.79, 3.16) | 2.14 (0.98, 4.68) | 2.03 (0.90, 4.60) | 0.07 | 1.45 (1.10, 1.93) |
|
| |||||||
| Diabetes/Control | 25/439 | 38/426 | 32/433 | 47/417 | 47/417 | ||
| Crude | 1(reference) | 1.57 (0.93, 2.64) | 1.30 (0.76, 2.23) | 1.98 (1.20, 3.27) | 1.98 (1.20, 3.27) | <0.005 | 1.24 (1.07, 1.44) |
| Model 1 | 1(reference) | 1.59 (0.93, 2.71) | 1.31 (0.75, 2.30) | 2.05 (1.19, 3.54) | 1.98 (1.09, 3.59) | <0.02 | 1.23 (1.03, 1.48) |
| Model 2 | 1(reference) | 1.28 (0.74, 2.21) | 1.03 (0.58, 1.83) | 1.64 (0.94, 2.84) | 1.65 (0.90, 3.02) | 0.07 | 1.16 (0.95, 1.42) |
1 Odds ratios (ORs) at 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by logistic regression, and the p-values for the trend were calculated by modeling the median of the dietary pattern scores as the independent variable. Model 1: adjusted for age (years) and study site (categorical); Model 2: Model 1 + education (4 categories), energy intake (kcal/day), smoking (yes or no), physical activity (METs-h/week) and alcohol (alcohol/day).
Percentage of explained variation in food intake and factor loadings of 30 food groups of the RRR-derived dietary pattern scores related to NAFLD biomarkers among males and females 1.
| Food Group | Men ( | Women ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explained Variation (%) | Factor Loading | Explained Variation (%) | Factor Loading | |
| Whole-grain cereals |
|
|
|
|
| Poultry |
|
|
|
|
| Dairy products |
|
| 13.4 | −0.19 |
| Coffee and tea |
|
|
|
|
| Condiments |
|
|
|
|
| Potatoes |
|
|
|
|
| Margarine |
|
|
|
|
| Olive oil |
|
|
|
|
| Sodas and juices | 7.9 | 0.15 | 6.1 | −0.13 |
| Sweet spreads | 7.8 | 0.15 | 6.6 | −0.13 |
| Rice and pasta | 7.5 | 0.15 | 0.7 | −0.05 |
| Processed meat | 5.5 | 0.13 | 5.7 | −0.13 |
| Palm oil |
|
|
|
|
| Roots, tubers and plantains |
|
| 12.4 | 0.18 |
| Fermented maize products |
|
| 6.1 | 0.13 |
| Vegetarian mixed dishes | 10.5 | −0.18 |
|
|
| Refined cereals | 5.6 | −0.13 | 7.4 | 0.14 |
| Cakes and sweets | 4.0 | 0.11 | 7.5 | −0.14 |
| Vegetables | 3.9 | 0.11 | 9.2 | −0.16 |
| Meaty mixed dishes | 4.1 | −0.11 | 0.9 | 0.05 |
| Legumes | 3.9 | −0.11 | 0.5 | −0.04 |
| Other oils | 2.8 | 0.09 | 4.2 | −0.11 |
| Cooking fats | 1.5 | 0.07 | 0.1 | −0.01 |
| Fish | 1.6 | −0.07 | 13.1 | 0.19 |
| Fruits | 1.4 | −0.06 | 1.7 | −0.07 |
| Eggs | 0.9 | 0.05 | 5.9 | −0.13 |
| Vegetable soups, stews and sauces | 0.3 | 0.03 | 0.1 | 0.01 |
| Red meat | 0.3 | −0.03 | 1.1 | −0.05 |
| Nuts and seeds | 0.4 | −0.03 | 0.0 | −0.01 |
| Alcoholic beverages | 0.1 | −0.02 | 6.3 | −0.13 |
|
|
|
| ||
1 Factor loadings are correlations between food groups and the dietary pattern score. Figures in bold represent food groups with relevant contributions to the dietary pattern score (≥0.20% explained variation in the factor loading for either males or females).
Percentage of explained variation in the NALFD biomarkers and response weights of the RRR-derived dietary pattern scores among males and females 1.
| Biomarker | Men ( | Women ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explained Variation (%) | Response Weight | Explained Variation (%) | Response Weight | |
| Cholesterol |
|
| 0.3 | 0.09 |
| LDL-cholesterol |
|
| 1.0 | 0.16 |
| HDL-cholesterol | 2.9 | 0.36 |
|
|
| AST |
|
|
|
|
| GGT | 1.5 | −0.26 | 0.3 | 0.09 |
| Triglycerides | 1.3 | −0.24 |
|
|
| C-reactive protein | 0.3 | −0.12 | 0.4 | 0.11 |
| ALT | 0.2 | 0.08 | 2.2 | 0.25 |
|
|
|
| ||
1 Figures in bold represent biomarkers with relevant relationships with the dietary pattern scores (response weight >|0.35|).
Associations of the biomarker-related and RRR-derived dietary pattern scores with type 2 diabetes among males and females 1.
| Odds Ratio (95% Confidence Interval) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Per 1 Score-SD | ||
|
| |||||||
| Diabetes/Control | 15/258 | 27/246 | 33/241 | 47/226 | 37/236 | ||
| Crude | 1 (reference) | 1.89 (0.98, 3.63) | 2.36 (1.25, 4.44) | 3.58 (1.95, 6.57) | 2.7 0(1.44, 5.04) | <0.0002 | 1.42 (1.20, 1.68) |
| Model 1 | 1 (reference) | 1.91 (0.97, 3.76) | 2.06 (1.00, 4.22) | 2.42 (1.07, 5.50) | 1.64 (0.72, 3.75) | 0.578 | 1.15 (0.89, 1.48) |
| Model 2 | 1 (reference) | 1.76 (0.89, 3.50) | 1.8 (0.86, 3.75) | 2.07 (0.90, 4.78) | 1.44 (0.61, 3.40) | 0.743 | 1.13 (0.86, 1.49) |
| Model 3 | 1 (reference) | 1.62 (0.81–3.22) | 1.46 (0.69–3.10) | 1.70 (0.72–4.01) | 1.21 (0.50, 2.89) | 0.962 | 1.07 (0.81, 1.42) |
|
| |||||||
| Diabetes/Control | 37/427 | 38/426 | 36/429 | 36/430 | 44/420 | ||
| Crude | 1 (reference) | 1.03 (0.64, 1.65) | 0.97 (0.60, 1.56) | 0.91 (0.56, 1.48) | 1.21 (0.77, 1.91) | 0.592 | 1.08 (0.93, 1.25) |
| Model 1 | 1 (reference) | 1.24 (0.76, 2.05) | 1.63 (0.84, 3.14) | 1.46 (0.73, 2.92) | 1.69 (0.84, 3.39) | 0.229 | 1.35 (1.05, 1.73) |
| Model 2 | 1 (reference) | 1.16 (0.70, 1.94) | 1.39 (0.69, 2.79) | 1.20 (0.57, 2.52) | 1.40 (0.67, 2.93) | 0.522 | 1.29 (0.99, 1.68) |
| Model 3 | 1 (reference) | 1.11 (0.66, 1.86) | 1.32 (0.65, 2.67) | 1.20 (0.57, 2.57) | 1.42 (0.67, 3.02) | 0.422 | 1.30 (0.99, 1.71) |
1 Odds ratios (ORs) at 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by logistic regression, and the p-values for the trend were calculated by modeling the median of the dietary pattern scores as the independent variable, Q1 as quintile 1, etc. Model 1: adjusted for age (years) and study site (categorical); Model 2: Model 1 + education (4 categories), energy intake (kcal/day), smoking (yes or no), physical activity (METs-h/week); Model 3: Model 2+ BMI and waist circumference.