FNOA: Antioxidants (2011-2012)

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:

To clarify the feasibility and potential cognitive efficacy of a soy isoflavone supplement in older adults.

Inclusion Criteria:
  • Men and women
  • Age>60 years
  • Cognitively healthy
  • Free of major medical, neurological, and psychiatric illnesses
  • Postmenopausal and not on hormone therapy for at least six months prior to enrollment (females).
Exclusion Criteria:
  • Those with cognitive impairment
  • Those with major medical, neurological or psychiatric illnesses.
Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment

Participants were recruited from the community; no details on recruitment were provided but were noted to be available at another source.

Design

Randomized placebo-controlled trial 

At baseline, subjects were randomized to receive either capsules containing 100mg per day of purified glycosidic isoflavones (approximately 85% daidzein and genistein) or a matching placebo capsule. Baseline assessment included neuropsychological evaluation, collection of blood samples for isoflavone and hormone assays, and safety laboratory testing, symptom interview, and brief medical evaluation. Subjects completed a standardized and validated food frequency questionnaire, estimating weekly intake of dietary soy isoflavones.

At the start of their research visit, subjects' nonfasting blood samples were drawn for analysis of isoflavones (genistein, daidzein and equol), estrogen (17β-oestradiol), luteinising hormone, and safety laboratory tests (amylase, lipase, and phosphate) Study procedures were repeated at months one, three, and six. Two months following the completion of study medication at month six, subjects returned for a final visit, limited to neuropsychological evaluation and safety laboratory tests.

The neuropsychological measures including sampling memory, attention and executive function (higher order cognitive abilities, such as planning, organizing, and reasoning) following standardized testing procedures.

Blinding used 

This study was described as double-blinded. No other information on blinding was provided.

Intervention

100mg per day of purified glycosidic isoflavones

Statistical Analysis

To examine the feasibility of isoflavone administration, plasma levels of isoflavones were drawn and data on side-effects, safety tests, and and adherence were presented. To examine cognitive effects, neuropsychological data were compared for an effect of soy administration across visits. The effect of soy isoflavone withdrawal was also examined by comparing neuropsychological performance at months six and eight.

Nonparametric methods were employed for all comparisons. P-values were computed for categorical subject characteristics using Pearson's chi-square test, and for continuous subject variables using the nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test. P-values adjusted for age and education for treatment effect across time corresponding to the cognitive outcome measures were computed using non-parametric Wilcoxon score general linear models.

 

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

  • Data was collected at baseline, and at one, three and six months following baseline. An additional visit at eight months following baseline was limited to neuropsychological evaluation and safety laboratory tests.
  • Baseline assessment included neuropsychological evaluation, collection of blood samples for isoflavone and hormone assays, and safety laboratory testing, symptom interview, and brief medical evaluation. 
  • Two months following the completion of study medication at month six, subjects returned for a final visit, limited to neuropsychological evaluation and safety laboratory tests.

Dependent Variables

  • Neuropsychological measures including sampling memory, attention and executive function (higher order cognitive abilities, such as planning, organizing, and reasoning) following standardized testing procedures
  • Cognitive performance measured by a battery of tests; tests included measures of verbal and visuospatial memory (Buschke Selective Reminding test, Paragraph Recall, Rey Complex Figure test, Visual Spatial Learning test), language (Boston Naming test), language fluency (FAS, animal fluency), visual-motor function (Rey Complex Figure test copy, Grooved Pegboard) and executive function (Stroop Color Word test, Mazes and Trail Making Test B).
  • Serum isoflavone levels (daidzein, genistein, and equol) using stable-isotope dilution CG-MS method.

Independent Variables:

  • Subjects were randomized to receive either capsules containing 100mg per day of purified glycosidic isoflavones (approximately 85% daidzein and genistein) or a matching placebo capsule 
  • Intake of 100mg per day of soy isoflavones as measured by use of supplements provided at baseline and month three
  • Serum isoflavone assays were also performed at months one and six
  • Subjects completed a standardized and validated food frequency questionnaire, estimating weekly intake of dietary soy isoflavones.

Control Variables

  • Age
  • Education.
Description of Actual Data Sample:
  • Initial N: =31
    • 34 participants were recruited and 31 were enrolled, with one who withdrew after baseline
    • 15 of the participants completing the study were women and 15 were men
      • Eight women in the placebo group
      • Seven women in the isoflavone group
  • Attrition (final N): One participant withdrew consent after baseline, making the final n= 30. The gender of the participant who withdrew was not revealed.
  • Age: 60-82 years
    • The placebo group was age 74.4 (SD=8)
    • The isoflavone group was age 73 (SD+7.9)
  • Ethnicity: All participants were self-identified as white and non-Hispanic
  • Other relevant demographics:
    • Education of the placebo group was 16.5 years (SD 3.3)
    • Education of the placebo group was 17.1 years (SD 3.0)
  • Anthropometrics: There were no differences between the intervention groups with regard to Mini-Mental State Exam score or Geriatric Depression Scale score.
  • Location: Madison, Wisconsin.

 

Summary of Results:

Key Findings

  • The isoflavone group differed across visits from the placebo group on eight of 11 tests administered. Of the 18 variables examined, 10 were statistically significant and two showed a trend toward significance.
  • Subjects on the soy isoflavone supplement performed better on several cognitive tests compared with those receiving placebo, including immediate and delayed recall of the Complex Figure Test, category fluency (months three and six only), and grooved pegboard test. There was a trend for improved performance for isoflavone-treated subjects on time to complete mazes.
  • At months three and six, subjects on the placebo were faster than those on isoflavones on two tests of executive function, Trail Making Test part B and Stroop Color-Word Test
  • The isoflavone and placebo-treated groups differed on the learning trials of the Visual Spatial Learning test. The placebo group was more accurate in recalling correct stimuli, but the isoflavone group was more accurate in rejecting incorrect designs.
  • The two groups did not differ in performance on two tests of verbal learning and recall, Buschke Selective Reminding test and Paragraph Recall test, nor on the Boston Naming test
  • Plasma levels of genistein and daidzein (P<0.001), but not equol, increased with isoflavone administration.

Change from baseline in cognitive performance over course of 6 months of treatment

  Change at
month 1
Change at
month 3  
Change at
month 6
Adjusted P value°
  Isoflavone Placebo Isoflavone Placebo Isoflavone Placebo  
Visual and Spatial Memory   
Total of learning
trial-words
1.2(9.1)  -0.5(4.3)  1.9(9.0)  1.4(4.7)  3.1(7.9)  1.4(9.3)  0.42 
Learning slope-trial
5 v. trial 1
0.8(2.2)  -0.2(2.1)  -0.3(1.1)  1.1(2.3)  -0.3(2.4)   0.1(1.8)  0.73
Delayed recall-words 0.9(2.3)  -0.0(1.5)  0.7(2.1)  0.1(1.3)  0.9(2.0)  -0.2(1.5)  1.00
Paragraph Recall Test        
Total immediate recall-points  0.4(15.6)  -3.0(12.0)  0.9(9.8)  -0.2(13.7)  1.3(14.0)  -1.1(10.9)  0.51 
Total delayed recall-points  -3.0(15.3)  -4.0(9.2)  -0.9(10.0)  3.1(10.5)  -0.4(14.0)  -2.0(10.7)  0.33 
Rey Complex Figure Test        
Immediate recall points  3.9(4.9)  -2.8(6.1)  0.9(4.3)  -0.5(5.5)  2.1(6.5)  -1.3(5.3)  0.00 
Delayed recall points  2.4(4.4)  -3.1(4.8)  0.7(4.9) 0.4(5.0)  1.1(5.8)  -0.1(5.3)  0.00 
Visual Spacial Learning Test        
Total correct positions + designs  2.5(4.8)  3.1(7.4)  -0.1(5.7)  2.7(5.7)  -1.0(5.5)  1.1(5.2)  0.04 
Learning slope positions + designs  -0.4(2.0)  0.6(2.7)  -0.4(2.5)  0.5(2.5)  0.1(1.4)  -0.3(2.3)  0.01 
Learning slope incorrect designs* (trial 1 vs. trial 5)  0.1(1.6)  0.1(1.2)  -0.6(1.6)  0.30(1.9)  -0.8(1.8)  0.5(2.1)  0.00 
Language        
Boston Naming (10-item version)  -0.4(4.2)  0.0(7.2)  0.0(5.6)  0.8(5.0)  -0.4(4.8)  1.6(4.8)  1.00 
Language Fluency 
Fluency               
Letter fluency-total  0.9(7.9)  -0.4(7.3)  0.3(7.3)  1.3(6.4)  1.1(9.7)  3.3(6.2)  0.07 
Category fluency-total  0.6(6.0)  1.3(9.2)  3.2(5.9)  -0.2(7.8)  1.4(5.8)  -1.9(5.8)  0.00 
Visual-motor function        
Rey Complex Figure Test copy-points  2.3(3.4)  -10.0(5.1)  0.1(2.6)  0.3(4.1)  0.8(3.6)  -0.6(4.9)  0.01 
Grooved Pegboard (ratio of dominant to non-dominant hand-time*)  -0.16(0.5)  -0.03(0.1)  -0.1(0.5)  -0.1(0.2)  -0.23(0.5)  -0.02(0.1)  0.04 
Executive function
Stroop Color Word Test 
       
Color word time*  0.3(5.0)  0.4(7.2)  -2.1(5.8)  -3.0(7.9)  -2.1(6.5)  -3.5(5.1)  0.02 
Trail Marking Test-Time to complete*  -5.4(22.4)  10.2(13.6)  5.6(24.9)  2.9(15.0)  -1.2(18.5)  -5.8(18.7)  0.01 
Mazes-Time to complete*  -21.6(44.8)  -11.7(46.1)  -22.1(59.2)  -15.5(44.0)  -23.1(50.6)  -19.3(48.6)  0.09 

 °p values for treatment effect across time were adjusted for age and education

*Negative value suggests improvement

Plasma levels of soy isoflavones at baseline, month one and month six

  Placebo treated (n=15) Isoflavone treated (n=15) p value
Baseline plasma isoflavone levels1
Total plasma isoflavones (nmol/l) (SD) 16.0(5.5) 21.1(15.7) 0.541
Plasma genistein (nmol/l) (SD) 4.2(1.6) 6.0(5.8) 0.965
Plasma daidzein (nmol/l) (SD) 4.3(2.0) 5.7(4.5) 0.160
Plasma equol (nmol/l) (SD) 7.5(3.1) 9.4(7.5) 0.541
Month 1 plasma isoflavone levels2
Total plasma isoflavones (nmol/l) (SD) 8.4(7.2) 334.6(188.6) 0.000
Plasma genistein (nmol/l) (SD) 2.8(1.6) 173.5(115.0) 0.000
Plasma daidzein (nmol/l) (SD) 2.8(1.3) 157.6(89.8) 0.000
Plasma equol (nmol/l) (SD) 2.8(3.7) 4.7(5.6) 0.089
Month 6 plasma isoflavone levels3    
Total plasma isoflavones (nmol/l) (SD)  8.6(3.8)  345.8(183.5)  0.000 
Plasma genistein (nmol/l) (SD)  3.1(2.5)  186.5(105.3)  0.000
Plasma daidzein (nmol/l) (SD)  2.9(1.5)  154.9(84.4)  0.000 
Plasma equol (nmol/l) (SD)  2.7(0.2)  3.4(3.7)  0.471 

1 For one subject from the placebo-controlled group, plasma isoflavone data were unavailable at baseline

2 For one subject from the placebo-controlled group, plasma isoflavone data were unavailable at month one

3 For one subject from the soy isoflavone-treated group, plasma isoflavone data were unavailable at month six

Other Findings

  • The effect of withdrawal of isoflavones was examined by comparing the performance of the two groups to their performance two months after the medications were stopped. No significant differences on any cognitive measures were noted.
  • There was substantial variability in plasma levels of isoflavones achieved, even with chronic use of a stable dose and standardized time for blood collection.
Author Conclusion:

The authors conclude that 100mg per day of isoflavones was well-tolerated. Plasma genistein and daidzein levels, but not equol, increased with isoflavone administration. Data support the potential cognitive effects of soy isoflavones in older adults.

Data from this study also highlight the need to clarify factors affecting the bioavailability of these compounds as we attempt to understand their cognitive efficacy in older adults.

Funding Source:
Government: National Institutes of Health
University/Hospital: University of Wisconsin, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine
In-Kind support reported by Industry: Yes
Reviewer Comments:
  • Small numbers of subjects in groups. The duration of the study (six months) does not seem adequate to detect cognitive changes in this population.
  • There are many factors that could affect cognitive performance in older adults that were not accounted for. Examples include presence of dehydration and use of certain medications.
  • Details of recruitment and blinding were not described in this study, so it is difficult to determine if appropriate procedures were followed.
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? ???
  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? ???
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) ???
  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? Yes
  4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? Yes
  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%.) Yes
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? Yes
  4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? Yes
  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? ???
  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? ???
  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? N/A
  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? ???
  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? ???
  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)? Yes
  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