Associations of Total Legume, Pulse, and Soy Consumption with Incident Type 2 Diabetes: Federated Meta-Analysis of 27 Studies from Diverse World Regions.
bean
chickpea
diabetes
legumes
lentil
pea
peanut
pulse
soy
Journal
The Journal of nutrition
ISSN: 1541-6100
Titre abrégé: J Nutr
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0404243
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 05 2021
11 05 2021
Historique:
received:
20
08
2020
revised:
02
10
2020
accepted:
21
12
2020
pubmed:
12
3
2021
medline:
2
9
2021
entrez:
11
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The consumption of legumes is promoted as part of a healthy diet in many countries but associations of total and types of legume consumption with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are not well established. Analyses across diverse populations are lacking despite the availability of unpublished legume consumption data in prospective cohort studies. To examine the prospective associations of total and types of legume intake with the risk of incident T2D. Meta-analyses of associations between total legume, pulse, and soy consumption and T2D were conducted using a federated approach without physical data-pooling. Prospective cohorts were included if legume exposure and T2D outcome data were available and the cohort investigators agreed to participate. We estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and CIs of associations using individual participant data including ≤42,473 incident cases among 807,785 adults without diabetes in 27 cohorts across the Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, Europe, and Western Pacific. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to combine effect estimates and estimate heterogeneity. Median total legume intake ranged from 0-140 g/d across cohorts. We observed a weak positive association between total legume consumption and T2D (IRR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.04) per 20 g/d higher intake, with moderately high heterogeneity (I2 = 74%). Analysis by region showed no evidence of associations in the Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, and Western Pacific. The positive association in Europe (IRR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.10, I2 = 82%) was mainly driven by studies from Germany, UK, and Sweden. No evidence of associations was observed for the consumption of pulses or soy. These findings suggest no evidence of an association of legume intakes with T2D in several world regions. The positive association observed in some European studies warrants further investigation relating to overall dietary contexts in which legumes are consumed, including accompanying foods which may be positively associated with T2D.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The consumption of legumes is promoted as part of a healthy diet in many countries but associations of total and types of legume consumption with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are not well established. Analyses across diverse populations are lacking despite the availability of unpublished legume consumption data in prospective cohort studies.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the prospective associations of total and types of legume intake with the risk of incident T2D.
METHODS
Meta-analyses of associations between total legume, pulse, and soy consumption and T2D were conducted using a federated approach without physical data-pooling. Prospective cohorts were included if legume exposure and T2D outcome data were available and the cohort investigators agreed to participate. We estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and CIs of associations using individual participant data including ≤42,473 incident cases among 807,785 adults without diabetes in 27 cohorts across the Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, Europe, and Western Pacific. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to combine effect estimates and estimate heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Median total legume intake ranged from 0-140 g/d across cohorts. We observed a weak positive association between total legume consumption and T2D (IRR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.04) per 20 g/d higher intake, with moderately high heterogeneity (I2 = 74%). Analysis by region showed no evidence of associations in the Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, and Western Pacific. The positive association in Europe (IRR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.10, I2 = 82%) was mainly driven by studies from Germany, UK, and Sweden. No evidence of associations was observed for the consumption of pulses or soy.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings suggest no evidence of an association of legume intakes with T2D in several world regions. The positive association observed in some European studies warrants further investigation relating to overall dietary contexts in which legumes are consumed, including accompanying foods which may be positively associated with T2D.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33693815
pii: S0022-3166(22)00157-2
doi: 10.1093/jn/nxaa447
pmc: PMC8112771
doi:
Substances chimiques
Soybean Proteins
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, N.I.H., Intramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1231-1240Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00006/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 212946/Z/18/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : 29186
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_12026/2
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00017/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_U137686851
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/S011676/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00006/3
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_12015/5
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_12015/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C20/A5860
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R024227/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society for Nutrition.
Références
Ann Intern Med. 2002 Feb 5;136(3):201-9
pubmed: 11827496
BMJ. 2019 Jul 03;366:l2368
pubmed: 31270064
Diabetes Care. 2008 Dec;31(12):2281-3
pubmed: 18835944
Clin Nutr. 2018 Jun;37(3):906-913
pubmed: 28392166
Adv Nutr. 2010 Nov;1(1):17-30
pubmed: 22043448
Diabetologia. 2009 Aug;52(8):1479-95
pubmed: 19526214
Am J Clin Nutr. 2020 Mar 1;111(3):677-688
pubmed: 31915830
Eur J Epidemiol. 2017 May;32(5):363-375
pubmed: 28397016
Adv Nutr. 2019 Nov 1;10(Suppl_4):S308-S319
pubmed: 31728500
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2011 Feb;65(2):279-82
pubmed: 20924394
J Nutr. 2019 Jul 1;149(7):1208-1214
pubmed: 31079144
Lancet. 2015 Dec 5;386(10010):2287-323
pubmed: 26364544
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2016 Dec;70(12):1381-1387
pubmed: 27380886
Stat Med. 2012 Jun 15;31(13):1361-8
pubmed: 22415661
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2018 Jan;118(1):74-100.e11
pubmed: 29111090
Diabetes Care. 2008 Jul;31(7):1311-7
pubmed: 18390796
J Diabetes Investig. 2013 Nov 27;4(6):626-33
pubmed: 24843718
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019 Nov;157:107843
pubmed: 31518657
J Nutr. 2010 Mar;140(3):580-6
pubmed: 20053935
Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Jan;87(1):162-7
pubmed: 18175751
Lancet Glob Health. 2015 Mar;3(3):e132-42
pubmed: 25701991
Am J Epidemiol. 2007 Mar 15;165(6):603-10
pubmed: 17220476
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2013 Apr;67(4):412-9
pubmed: 23388667
Int J Epidemiol. 2014 Dec;43(6):1929-44
pubmed: 25261970
Stat Med. 1990 Oct;9(10):1157-65
pubmed: 2247716
Diabetes Care. 2004 Dec;27(12):2993-6
pubmed: 15562224
Diabetologia. 2005 Jun;48(6):1126-34
pubmed: 15889235
Lancet. 2019 Feb 2;393(10170):447-492
pubmed: 30660336
Diabetes Care. 2016 Nov;39(11):1987-1995
pubmed: 27493134
Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Apr;71(4):921-30
pubmed: 10731498
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Nov 1;92(21):1740-52
pubmed: 11058617
Diabetes Care. 2011 Sep;34(9):1913-8
pubmed: 21788627
Br J Nutr. 2013 Mar 28;109(6):1143-53
pubmed: 22850191
Eur J Nutr. 2012 Dec;51(8):1033-40
pubmed: 22094581