Pro-vegetarian food patterns and cardiometabolic risk in the PREDIMED-Plus study: a cross-sectional baseline analysis

Résumé fourni par la source

Purpose We explored the cross-sectional association between the adherence to three different provegetarian (PVG) food patterns defined as general (gPVG), healthful (hPVG) and unhealthful (uPVG), and the cardiometabolic risk in adults with metabolic syndrome (MetS) of the PREDIMED-Plus randomized intervention study. Methods We performed a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from 6439 participants of the PREDIMED-Plus randomized intervention study. The gPVG food pattern was built by positively scoring plant foods (vegetables/fruits/legumes/grains/potatoes/nuts/olive oil) and negatively scoring, animal foods (meat and meat products/animal fats/eggs/fish and seafood/dairy products). The hPVG and uPVG were generated from the gPVG by adding four new food groups (tea and coffee/fruit juices/sugar-sweetened beverages/sweets and desserts), splitting grains and potatoes and scoring them differently. Multivariable-adjusted robust linear regression using MM-type estimator was used to assess the association between PVG food patterns and the standardized Metabolic Syndrome score (MetS z-score), a composed index that has been previously used to ascertain the cardiometabolic risk, adjusting for potential confounders. Results A higher adherence to the gPVG and hPVG was associated with lower cardiometabolic risk in multivariable models. The regression coefficients for 5th vs. 1st quintile were − 0.16 (95% CI: − 0.33 to 0.01) for gPVG (p trend: 0.015), and − 0.23 (95% CI: − 0.41 to − 0.05) for hPVG (p trend: 0.016). In contrast, a higher adherence to the uPVG was associated with higher cardiometabolic risk, 0.21 (95% CI: 0.04 to 0.38) (p trend: 0.019). Conclusion Higher adherence to gPVG and hPVG food patterns was generally associated with lower cardiovascular risk, whereas higher adherence to uPVG was associated to higher cardiovascular risk.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.