DM: Prevention and Treatment of CVD (2007)

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:
To compare the vascular and metabolic effects of fatty acid blends containing plant-derived and marine-derived n-3 fatty acids in adults with type 2 diabetes, and to test whether their inclusion in a meal altered the postprandial effects of oleic acid.
Inclusion Criteria:
  • diagnosis of type 2 diabetes
  • HbA1c < 9%
  • treated with diet or oral hypoglycemic agents only
Exclusion Criteria:
  • fasting glucose > 16.7 mmol/l
  • triacyglycerols > 4.5 mmol/l
  • systolic blood pressure greater-than-or-equal-to 160 mmHg
  • diastolic blood pressure greater-than-or-equal-to 95mmHg
  • BMI > 35
  • current smoker
  • history of current diagnosis of cardiovascular disease
  • diabetic retinopathy, neuropathy, or nephropathy
  • use of medications or supplement known to affect lipids or blood pressure

 

Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment:  not specified

Design

  • randomized, double-blind, three-phase cross-over design used
  • treatment sessions separated by 7 days
  • isocaloric test meals given and consumed within 15 minutes;
  • flow-mediated dilation of the brachial artery assessed under fasting condition and again 4 hours after each meal
  • blood samples collected after a 12-hour fast and 2 hours and 4 hours after each meal

Blinding used (if applicable): meal consisted of a beverage served in an unmarked container, with flavors and colors added to mask fat characteristics

Intervention (if applicable)

  • 3 test meals
    • MUFA: 
      • 47% MUFA, 6.5% SFA, 14.1 % PUFA, 0.8% n-3
      • fat source 90% high-oleic safflower oil and 10% canola oil
      • 0.5 g alpha linoleic acid (ALA)
    • ALA + MUFA: 
      • 44.9% MUFA, 5.0% SFA, 18.4% PUFA, 4.8% n-3
      • fat source 70% canola oil, 20% high oleic safflower oil, 10% safflower oil
      • 3.3 g ALA
    • EPA/DHA + MUFA:
      • 44.2% MUFA, 7.0% SFA, 17% PUFA, 6.9% n-3
      • 60% high oleic safflower oil, 25% safflower oil, 15% sardine oil
      • 2.8 g EPA, 1.2g DHA, and 0.2 g ALA
  • all meals were 13% protein from skimmed milk; 15% carbohydrate from skimmed milk, and 70% fat

Statistical Analysis

  • all variables analysed using a mixed models approach
  • models included treatment, time, and visit number as fixed effects and subject as a random effect
  • there were no significant effects of treatment order and when significant effects of time were found the effect of treatment on change scores was examined
  • Tukey-Kramer adjusted p values were used to examine the source of significant effects
  • all analyses of FMD and blood flow were adjusted for basal means±SE
  • interrelationships between the variables were estimated by partial Pearson correlation coefficients

 

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements:  see intervention above

Dependent Variables

  • brachial arterial diameter and flow velocity, using duplex ultrasound imaging
  • flow-mediated dilation(FMD)
  • serum lipids
  • blood glucose
  • serum insulin
  • insulin resistance and sensitivity

Independent Variables

  •  composition of test meals

Control Variables

  • fasting triacyglycerol levels

 

Description of Actual Data Sample:

Initial N: 18 patients; 13 men, 5 women

Attrition (final N): 18

Age: 55.1±2.1 y

Ethnicity: not specified

Other relevant demographics: 17 had been diagnosed in the last 6 years and 16 were taking oral hypoglycemic dugs

Anthropometrics

  • BMI 29.2±0.8

 Location: United States

 

Summary of Results:

Predictors of fasting flow-mediated dilation (FMD)

Lower fasting FMD was associated with increasing age (r=-0.72, p=0.001) and higher systolic blood pressure (r=-0.50, p=0.04).  There was no relationship between fasting FMD and insulin, glucose, or markers of insulin sensitivity or resistance.

Vascular and metabolic effects of fatty acid blends

Regardless of the fatty acid composition of the test meals, average FMD increased by 17% at 4 h, relative to the fasting baseline (average FMD=5.16±0.51 vs. 6.04±0.51 at 0 vs. 4 h, respectively, p=0.01).

Triacylglycerols significantly increased after each meal and the largest change was observed at 4 h after the meal.  Insulin concentrations increased 92% at 2 h (p<0.05) and returned to baseline at 4 h.  Glucose was significantly lower at 4 h postmeal vs. fasting levels (p<0.001).

Predictors of postprandial change in FMD

During the MUFA meal only, there was a significant inverse correlation between change in triacylglycerols and change in FMD (r=-0.50, P<0.05), such that subjects with the largest triacylglycerol increases after the MUFA meal exhibited reductions in endothelium-dependent vasodilation.  The opposite pattern was observed when test meals included 3 to 4 g of n-3 fatty acids.

Group differences in postprandial responses to the meals

During the MUFA treatment, the post-prandial triacylglycerols change (increase) was larger in the high triacyglycerols group than in the low group (p=0.01).  However the two groups did not differ when test meals included ALA or EPA/DHA, and there was no significant group-treatment interaction for triacylglycerols change (p<0.05). 

Following the MUFA meal there were no significant changes in FMD in either group.  When test meals included n-3 fatty acids, the high triacylglycerols showed significant increases in FMD at 4 h (P<0.04).  This response resulted in a significant treatment-group interaction for FMD change (P<0.03).

 Other Findings

When basal artery diameter was used as a covariate, fasting FMD was significantly lower in the high triacylglycerols group (p=0.03).

 

Author Conclusion:

A meal containing 50g of fat, primarily from unsaturated fatty acids, was not associated with impaired endothelial fuction.

In patients with type 2 diabetes and high fasting triacylglycerols levels, meals containing 3 to 5 g of either plant- or marine-derived n-3 fatty acids actually significantly improved postprandial lipemia and endothelial function.

The data support the view that the vascular efects of a meal are dependent both on the fatty acid composition of the meal and the metabolic status of the subject.

The results suggest that adjunctive treatment with n-3 fatty acids could enhance endothelial function even in patients who are already taking hypoglycemic drugs.

Funding Source:
Reviewer Comments:

Findings based on consumption of 1 meal.

Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
Relevance Questions
  1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) Yes
  2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Yes
  3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? Yes
  4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) Yes
 
Validity Questions
1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
  1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? Yes
  1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? Yes
  1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? Yes
  2.1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? Yes
  2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? Yes
  2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? Yes
  2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? Yes
3. Were study groups comparable? Yes
  3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) Yes
  3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? Yes
  3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) Yes
  3.4. If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? N/A
  3.5. If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) N/A
  3.6. If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? N/A
4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? N/A
  4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? N/A
  4.2. Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) N/A
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? N/A
  4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? N/A
  4.5. If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? N/A
5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? Yes
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? Yes
  5.2. Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) Yes
  5.3. In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? N/A
  5.4. In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? N/A
  5.5. In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? N/A
6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? Yes
  6.1. In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? Yes
  6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? N/A
  6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? Yes
  6.4. Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? Yes
  6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? Yes
  6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? N/A
  6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? Yes
  6.8. In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? N/A
7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? Yes
  7.1. Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? Yes
  7.2. Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? N/A
  7.3. Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? Yes
  7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? Yes
  7.5. Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? Yes
  7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? Yes
  7.7. Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? Yes
8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? Yes
  8.1. Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? Yes
  8.2. Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? Yes
  8.3. Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? Yes
  8.4. Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? N/A
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? Yes
  8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? Yes
  8.7. If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? No
9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Yes
  9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
  9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? Yes
10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? Yes
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? Yes