Nutritional Genomics

NG: Effect on Relevant Laboratory Measures and Blood Pressure (2018-19)

• Intervention
  In adults, what is the effect of incorporating results of genetic testing into nutrition counseling and care, compared to counseling or care that did not incorporate genetic results, on lipid profile?

  • Conclusion

    No significant differences in cholesterol (total, LDL or HDL) or triglyceride levels were observed when results of genetic testing were incorporated into nutrition counseling or care as compared to counseling or care that did not incorporate genetic results. Findings were consistent across a variety of interventions and populations.

  • Grade: II
    • Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
    • Grade II is Fair;
    • Grade III is Limited/Weak;
    • Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
    • Grade V is Not Assignable.
    • High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
    • Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
    • Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
    • Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
    • Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
  • Evidence Summary: In adults, what is the effect of incorporating results of genetic testing into nutrition counseling and care, compared to compared to counseling or care that did not incorporate genetic results, on lipid profile?
    • Detail
    • Quality Rating Summary
      For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
    • Worksheets
      • Fallaize R, Celis-Morales C, Macready A, Marsaux C, Forster H, O'Donovan C, Woolhead C, San-Cristobal R, Kolossa S, Hallmann J, Mavrogianni C, Surwillo A, Livingstone K, Moschonis G, Navas-Carretero S, Walsh M, Gibney E, Brennan L, Bouwman J, Grimaldi K, Manios Y, Traczyk I, Drevon C, Martinez J, Daniel H, Saris W, Gibney M, Mathers J, Lovegrove J. The effect of the apolipoprotein E genotype on response to personalized dietary advice intervention: findings from the Food4Me randomized controlled trial. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2016; 104:827-36
      • Kullo I, Jouni H, Austin E, Brown S, Kruisselbrink T, Isseh I, Haddad R, Marroush T, Shameer K, Olson J, Broeckel U, Green R, Schaid D, Montori V, Bailey K. Incorporating a Genetic Risk Score Into Coronary Heart Disease Risk Estimates: Effect on Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels (the MI-GENES Clinical Trial). Circulation 2016; 133:1181-8
      • Kaitlin R, Walton K, Klingel SL, Harnett A, Subedi S, Haines J, Mutch DM. Evaluating Changes in Omega-3 Fatty Acid Intake after Receiving Personal FADS1 Genetic Information: A Randomized Nutrigenetic Intervention. Nutrients 2017; 9:E240
      • Stachowska E, Ryterska K, Maciejewska D, Banaszczak M, Milkiewicz P, Milkiewicz M, Gutowska I, Ossowski P, Kaczorowska M, Jamiol-Milc D, Sabinicz A, Napierala M, Wadolowska L, Raszeja-Wyszomirska J. Nutritional Strategies for the Individualized Treatment of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) Based on the Nutrient-Induced Insulin Output Ratio (NIOR). International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2016; 17:
  • Search Plan and Results: NG: Incorporating Results of Genetic Testing into Nutrition Counseling or Care (2019)
     
  In adults, what is the effect of different intensities of personalized nutrition counseling that incorporate results of genetic testing into nutrition counseling and care, on lipid profile?

  • Conclusion

    In healthy adults of South-Asian descent, when both the intervention and comparison groups received genetic information related to myocardial infarction (MI) risk (9p21 SNP), there was no significant difference in Apolipoprotein B:A1 observed when participants received more intensive, personalized nutrition counseling.

  • Grade: III
    • Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
    • Grade II is Fair;
    • Grade III is Limited/Weak;
    • Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
    • Grade V is Not Assignable.
    • High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
    • Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
    • Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
    • Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
    • Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
  • Evidence Summary: In adults, what is the effect of different intensities of personalized nutrition counseling that incorporate results of genetic testing into nutrition counseling and care, on lipid profile?
    • Detail
    • Quality Rating Summary
      For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
    • Worksheets
      • Samaan Z, Schulze K, Middleton C, Irvine J,J oseph P, Mente A, Shah B, Pare G, Desai D, Anand S. South Asian heart risk assessment (SAHARA): randomized controlled trial design and pilot study. JMIR Research Protocols 2013; 2:e33
  • Search Plan and Results: NG: Incorporating Results of Genetic Testing into Nutrition Counseling or Care (2019)
     
  In adults, what is the effect of incorporating results of genetic testing into nutrition counseling and care, compared to counseling or care that did not incorporate genetic results, on glucose homeostasis measures?

  • Conclusion

    No significant differences in fasting blood glucose, insulin levels or HOMA-IR were observed when results of genetic testing were incorporated into nutrition counseling or care as compared to counseling or care that did not incorporate genetic results. Findings were consistent across a variety of interventions and populations.

  • Grade: III
    • Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
    • Grade II is Fair;
    • Grade III is Limited/Weak;
    • Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
    • Grade V is Not Assignable.
    • High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
    • Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
    • Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
    • Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
    • Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
  • Evidence Summary: In adults, what is the effect of incorporating results of genetic testing into nutrition counseling and care, compared to counseling or care that did not incorporate genetic results, on glucose homeostasis measures?
    • Detail
    • Quality Rating Summary
      For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
    • Worksheets
      • Stachowska E, Ryterska K, Maciejewska D, Banaszczak M, Milkiewicz P, Milkiewicz M, Gutowska I, Ossowski P, Kaczorowska M, Jamiol-Milc D, Sabinicz A, Napierala M, Wadolowska L, Raszeja-Wyszomirska J. Nutritional Strategies for the Individualized Treatment of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) Based on the Nutrient-Induced Insulin Output Ratio (NIOR). International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2016; 17:
      • Voils C, Coffman C, Grubber J, Edelman D, Sadeghpour A, Maciejewski M, Bolton J, Cho A, Ginsburg G, Yancy W. Does Type 2 Diabetes Genetic Testing and Counseling Reduce Modifiable Risk Factors? A Randomized Controlled Trial of Veterans. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2015; 30:1591-8
      • Wu R, Myers R, Hauser E, Vorderstrasse A, Cho A, Ginsburg G, Orlando L. Impact of genetic testing and family health history based risk counseling on behavior change and cognitive precursors for type 2 diabetes. Journal of Genetic Counseling 2017; 26:133-140
  • Search Plan and Results: NG: Incorporating Results of Genetic Testing into Nutrition Counseling or Care (2019)
     
  In adults, what is the effect of different intensities of personalized nutrition counseling that incorporate results of genetic testing into nutrition counseling and care, on glucose homeostasis measures?

  • Conclusion

    In healthy adults of South-Asian descent, when both the intervention and comparison groups received genetic information related to myocardial infarction (MI) risk (9p21 SNP), there was no significant difference in HbA1c observed when participants received more intensive, personalized nutrition counseling.

  • Grade: III
    • Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
    • Grade II is Fair;
    • Grade III is Limited/Weak;
    • Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
    • Grade V is Not Assignable.
    • High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
    • Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
    • Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
    • Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
    • Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
  • Evidence Summary: In adults, what is the effect of different intensities of personalized nutrition counseling that incorporate results of genetic testing into nutrition counseling and care, on glucose homeostasis measures?
    • Detail
    • Quality Rating Summary
      For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
    • Worksheets
      • Samaan Z, Schulze K, Middleton C, Irvine J,J oseph P, Mente A, Shah B, Pare G, Desai D, Anand S. South Asian heart risk assessment (SAHARA): randomized controlled trial design and pilot study. JMIR Research Protocols 2013; 2:e33
  • Search Plan and Results: NG: Incorporating Results of Genetic Testing into Nutrition Counseling or Care (2019)
     
  In adults, what is the effect of incorporating results of genetic testing into nutrition counseling and care, compared to an alternative intervention or control group, on ALT/AST levels?

  • Conclusion

    In one small RCT targeting participants diagnosed with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), no significant differences in AST or ALT levels were observed when results of genetic testing were incorporated into nutrition counseling or care as compared to counseling or care that did not incorporate genetic results.

  • Grade: III
    • Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
    • Grade II is Fair;
    • Grade III is Limited/Weak;
    • Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
    • Grade V is Not Assignable.
    • High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
    • Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
    • Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
    • Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
    • Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
  • Evidence Summary: In adults, what is the effect of incorporating results of genetic testing into nutrition counseling and care, compared to an alternative intervention or control group, on ALT/AST levels?
    • Detail
    • Quality Rating Summary
      For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
    • Worksheets
      • Stachowska E, Ryterska K, Maciejewska D, Banaszczak M, Milkiewicz P, Milkiewicz M, Gutowska I, Ossowski P, Kaczorowska M, Jamiol-Milc D, Sabinicz A, Napierala M, Wadolowska L, Raszeja-Wyszomirska J. Nutritional Strategies for the Individualized Treatment of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) Based on the Nutrient-Induced Insulin Output Ratio (NIOR). International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2016; 17:
  • Search Plan and Results: NG: Incorporating Results of Genetic Testing into Nutrition Counseling or Care (2019)
     
  In adults, what is the effect of incorporating results of genetic testing into nutrition counseling and care, compared to an alternative intervention or control group, on blood pressure?

  • Conclusion

    In healthy adults of South-Asian descent, when both the intervention and comparison groups received genetic information related to myocardial infarction (MI) risk (9p21 SNP), there was no significant difference in blood pressure observed when participants received more intensive, personalized nutrition counseling.

  • Grade: III
    • Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
    • Grade II is Fair;
    • Grade III is Limited/Weak;
    • Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
    • Grade V is Not Assignable.
    • High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
    • Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
    • Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
    • Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
    • Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
  • Evidence Summary: In adults, what is the effect of incorporating results of genetic testing into nutrition counseling and care, compared to an alternative intervention or control group, on blood pressure?
    • Detail
    • Quality Rating Summary
      For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
    • Worksheets
      • Samaan Z, Schulze K, Middleton C, Irvine J,J oseph P, Mente A, Shah B, Pare G, Desai D, Anand S. South Asian heart risk assessment (SAHARA): randomized controlled trial design and pilot study. JMIR Research Protocols 2013; 2:e33
  • Search Plan and Results: NG: Incorporating Results of Genetic Testing into Nutrition Counseling or Care (2019)
     
  In children, what is the effect of incorporating results of genetic testing into nutrition counseling and care, compared to an alternative intervention or control group, on relevant laboratory measures and blood pressure?

  • Conclusion

    No articles examining the effect of incorporating results of genetic testing in nutrition counseling and care, compared to an alternative intervention or control group, on relevant laboratory measures or blood pressure in children met inclusion criteria for this systematic review.

  • Grade: V
    • Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
    • Grade II is Fair;
    • Grade III is Limited/Weak;
    • Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
    • Grade V is Not Assignable.
    • High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
    • Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
    • Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
    • Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
    • Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.