| Literature DB >> 35277021 |
Yingting Cao1,2, Quan Huynh3, Nitin Kapoor1,2,4, Panniyammakal Jeemon5, Gabrielli Thais de Mello6, Brian Oldenburg1,2,7, Kavumpurathu Raman Thankappan5,8, Thirunavukkarasu Sathish1,9.
Abstract
The association between dietary patterns and cardiometabolic risk factors is not well understood among adults in India, particularly among those at high risk for diabetes. For this study, we analyzed the data of 1007 participants (age 30-60 years) from baseline and year one and two follow-ups from the Kerala Diabetes Prevention Program using multi-level mixed effects modelling. Dietary intake was measured using a quantitative food frequency questionnaire, and dietary patterns were identified using principal component analysis. Two dietary patterns were identified: a "snack-fruit" pattern (highly loaded with fats and oils, snacks, and fruits) and a "rice-meat-refined wheat" pattern (highly loaded with meat, rice, and refined wheat). The "snack-fruit" pattern was associated with increased triglycerides (mg/dL) (β = 6.76, 95% CI 2.63-10.89), while the "rice-meat-refined wheat" pattern was associated with elevated Hb1Ac (percentage) (β = 0.04, 95% CI 0.01, 0.07) and central obesity (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.01, 1.34). These findings may help inform designing dietary interventions for the prevention of diabetes and improving cardiometabolic risk factors in high-diabetes-risk individuals in the Indian setting.Entities:
Keywords: central obesity; elevated Hb1Ac; multi-level mixed effects modeling; principal component analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35277021 PMCID: PMC8838960 DOI: 10.3390/nu14030662
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Flow chart for K-DPP participants across three time points. The “Lost to follow-up at 24 months” box is the cumulative loss from baseline to 24 months.
Figure 2Dietary pattern loading by 22 food groups during three time points for the K-DPP study (n = 958, with non-missing dietary pattern across three timepoints).
The mean cumulative dietary pattern scores by baseline characteristics among K-DPP participants (n = 958).
| Snack-Fruit Pattern (Mean (SD)) | Rice-Meat-Refined Wheat Pattern | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.77 | 0.016 | ||
| ≤45 years ( | −0.0 (0.7) | 0.0 (0.8) | ||
| >45 years ( | −0.0 (0.7) | −0.1 (0.7) | ||
| Sex | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| Male ( | 0.1 (0.7) | 0.3 (0.8) | ||
| Female ( | −0.1 (0.6) | −0.4 (0.5) | ||
| Marital status | 0.22 | <0.001 | ||
| Married ( | −0.0 (0.7) | 0.0 (0.7) | ||
| Separated/divorced/widowed | 0.1 (0.9) | −0.5 (0.7) | ||
| Never married ( | 0.3 (0.8) | −0.5 (0.4) | ||
| Education | 0.045 | 0.022 | ||
| Up to primary school ( | −0.1 (0.7) | −0.0 (0.7) | ||
| Secondary school ( | 0.0 (0.7) | 0.0 (0.7) | ||
| Tertiary and above ( | 0.0 (0.8) | −0.2 (0.6) | ||
| Occupation | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| Skilled/unskilled ( | 0.1 (0.7) | 0.1 (0.8) | ||
| Homemaker/unemployed/retired ( | −0.2 (0.6) | −0.4 (0.5) | ||
| Leisure-time physical activity | <0.001 | 0.015 | ||
| Leisure inactive ( | −0.1 (0.7) | −0.0 (0.7) | ||
| Leisure active ( | 0.2 (0.7) | 0.1 (0.9) | ||
| Alcohol use | 0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| No ( | −0.0 (0.7) | −0.2 (0.6) | ||
| Yes ( | 0.1 (0.7) | 0.5 (0.9) | ||
| Tobacco use | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| No ( | −0.0 (0.7) | −0.1 (0.6) | ||
| Yes ( | 0.2 (0.8) | 0.4 (0.9) |
Mean cumulative dietary pattern scores (across three years) by cardiometabolic risk factors at baseline (n = 985, with non-missing dietary data across three waves).
| Cardiometabolic Risk Factors | Snack-Fruit Pattern | Rice-Meat-Refined Wheat Pattern | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obesity 1 | 0.39 | 0.59 | ||
| No ( | 0.0 (0.7) | −0.0 (0.7) | ||
| Yes ( | −0.0 (0.7) | −0.0 (0.8) | ||
| Central obesity 2 | 0.31 | 0.52 | ||
| No ( | 0.0 (0.8) | 0.0 (0.7) | ||
| Yes ( | −0.0 (0.7) | −0.0 (0.7) | ||
| Hypertriglyceridemia 3 | 0.12 | <0.001 | ||
| No ( | −0.0 (0.7) | −0.1 (0.7) | ||
| Yes ( | 0.1 (0.7) | 0.2 (0.8) | ||
| Low HDL 4 | 0.16 | 0.055 | ||
| No ( | 0.0 (0.7) | 0.0 (0.7) | ||
| Yes ( | −0.1 (0.7) | −0.1 (0.7) | ||
| Elevated blood pressure 5 | 0.57 | 0.20 | ||
| No ( | 0.0 (0.7) | −0.0 (0.7) | ||
| Yes ( | −0.0 (0.7) | 0.0 (0.8) | ||
| Prediabetes 6 | 0.89 | 0.74 | ||
| No ( | −0.0 (0.7) | −0.0 (0.8) | ||
| Yes ( | −0.0 (0.7) | −0.0 (0.7) | ||
| Metabolic syndrome 7 | 0.89 | 0.76 | ||
| No ( | −0.0 (0.7) | −0.0 (0.7) | ||
| Yes ( | −0.0 (0.7) | −0.0 (0.7) |
1 Obesity was defined as BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 [22]; 2 Central obesity was defined as waist circumference ≥90 cm for males and ≥80 cm for females [23]; 3 Hypertriglyceridemia was defined as triglycerides ≥150 mg/dL (1.7 mmol/L); 4 Low HDL was defined as HDL <40 mg/dL (1 mmol/L) for males and <50 mg/dL (1.3 mmol/L) for females; 5 Elevated blood pressure was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥130 mmHg and /or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 85 mmHg or drug treatment for hypertension; 6 Prediabetes was defined according to the ADA: 5.6 ≤ Fasting glucose ≤ 6.9 or 7.8 ≤ 2-h glucose ≤ 11.0, or 5.7% ≤ HBA1c ≤ 6.4% [24]; 7 Metabolic syndrome was defined as central obesity + any two or more symptoms defined above from item 3–6 [23].
Longitudinal associations between dietary patterns and cardiometabolic biomarkers using multi-level mixed effects models 1.
| Snack-Fruit Pattern | Rice-Meat-Refined Wheat Pattern | |
|---|---|---|
| Triglycerides (mg/dL) | ||
| Model 1 | 7.44 (3.30, 11.58) | 1.23 (−3.11, 5.58) |
| Model 2 | 7.59 (3.41, 11.78) | 1.84 (−2.57, 6.25) |
| Model 3 | 6.76 (2.63, 10.89) | −1.34 (−5.75, 3.06) |
| HDL cholesterol (mg/dL) | ||
| Model 1 | −0.41 (−1.18, 0.36) | −0.09 (−0.90, 0.72) |
| Model 2 | −0.59 (−1.37, 0.18) | 0.08 (−0.74, 0.89) |
| Model 3 | −0.55 (−1.32, 0.22) | −0.37 (−1.19, 0.45) |
| Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | ||
| Model 1 | −0.80 (−1.75, 0.14) | 0.08 (−0.92, 1.08) |
| Model 2 | −0.90 (−1.85, 0.05) | 0.34 (−0.67, 1.35) |
| Model 3 | −0.87 (−1.82, 0.07) | −0.05 (−1.07, 0.97) |
| Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | ||
| Model 1 | −0.45 (−1.10, 0.19) | −0.54 (−1.19, 0.11) |
| Model 2 | −0.33 (−1.02, 0.35) | −0.18 (−0.88, 0.51) |
| Fasting glucose (mmol/L) | ||
| Model 1 | 0.01 (−0.03, 0.05) | 0.03 (−0.02, 0.07) |
| Model 2 | −0.00 (−0.04, 0.04) | 0.04 (−0.01, 0.08) |
| Model 3 | 0.00 (−0.04, 0.04) | 0.04 (−0.01, 0.08) |
| Two-hour glucose (mmol/L) | ||
| Model 1 | −0.05 (−0.16, 0.06) | 0.02 (−0.09, 0.14) |
| Model 2 | −0.05 (−0.16, 0.06) | 0.04 (−0.08, 0.16) |
| Model 3 | −0.04 (−0.15, 0.07) | 0.04 (−0.08, 0.16) |
| Hb1Ac (%) | ||
| Model 1 | 0.01 (−0.02, 0.03) | 0.04 (0.01, 0.07) |
| Model 2 | 0.00 (−0.03, 0.03) | 0.05 (0.01, 0.08) |
| Model 3 | 0.00 (−0.03, 0.03) | 0.04 (0.01, 0.07) |
1 Results are presented as beta coefficients with 95% CI. Model 1: age, sex. Model 2: Model 1 + marriage status, education, occupation. Model 3: Model 2 + leisure PA, alcohol consumption and smoking. In addition, the model was adjusted for wave, study group, and the interaction between timepoint and study group.
Longitudinal associations between dietary patterns and binary cardiometabolic risk factors using multi-level mixed-effects models *.
| Snack-Fruit Pattern | Rice-Meat-Refined Wheat Pattern | |
|---|---|---|
| Obesity | ||
| Model 1 | 0.97 (0.86, 1.10) | 1.01 (0.89, 1.15) |
| Model 2 | 0.98 (0.87, 1.12) | 1.02 (0.89, 1.16) |
| Model 3 | 0.97 (0.85, 1.10) | 1.00 (0.87, 1.14) |
| Central obesity | ||
| Model 1 | 1.03 (0.90, 1.17) | 1.18 (1.03, 1.35) |
| Model 2 | 1.03 (0.90, 1.17) | 1.19 (1.03, 1.36) |
| Model 3 | 1.02 (0.90, 1.16) | 1.16 (1.01, 1.34) |
| Hypertriglyceridemia | ||
| Model 1 | 1.08 (0.94, 1.24) | 1.00 (0.87, 1.16) |
| Model 2 | 1.08 (0.94, 1.25) | 1.03 (0.89, 1.18) |
| Model 3 | 1.05 (0.91, 1.22) | 0.96 (0.82, 1.11) |
| Low HDL | ||
| Model 1 | 0.96 (0.85, 1.09) | 0.95 (0.84, 1.08) |
| Model 2 | 0.98 (0.87, 1.11) | 0.94 (0.82, 1.07) |
| Model 3 | 0.97 (0.86, 1.10) | 0.95 (0.83, 1.09) |
| Raised blood pressure | ||
| Model 1 | 0.89 (0.78, 1.01) | 1.05 (0.92, 1.20) |
| Model 2 | 0.90 (0.79, 1.02) | 1.07 (0.94, 1.22) |
| Model 3 | 0.90 (0.79, 1.03) | 1.03 (0.89, 1.18) |
| Diabetes | ||
| Model 1 | 1.04 (0.80, 1.35) | 1.20 (0.93, 1.56) |
| Model 2 | 0.99 (0.76, 1.29) | 1.28 (0.98, 1.66) |
| Model 3 | 0.99 (0.76, 1.29) | 1.28 (0.98, 1.67) |
| Metabolic syndrome | ||
| Model 1 | 0.99 (0.87, 1.13) | 1.14 (0.99, 1.30) |
| Model 2 | 1.00 (0.87, 1.13) | 1.14 (1.00, 1.31) |
| Model 3 | 0.99 (0.87, 1.13) | 1.11 (0.97, 1.28) |
* Results are presented as odds ratio and 95% CI. Instead of reporting prediabetes, which takes 72% of the study population at baseline, and didn’t change too much along the waves, diabetes (about 15% developed diabetes at year 2) is reported here, using the dietary cumulative mean score to predict diabetes at year 2. Model 1: age, sex. Model 2: Model 1 + marriage status, education, occupation. Model 3: Model 2 + leisure PA, alcohol consumption, and smoking. In addition, the model was adjusted for wave, study arm, and the interaction between wave and study arm for all the other outcomes in the table, but not for diabetes. For diabetes (developed at year 2), only study arm was adjusted.