Search

Background/Objectives:: There has been recent interest in barley as a therapeutic food owing to its high content of beta-glucan (β-glucan), a viscous soluble fiber recognized for its cholesterol-lowering properties. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the cholesterol-lowering potential of barley β-glucan on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and apolipoprotein B (apoB) for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction. Methods:: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane CENTRAL were searched. We included RCTs of ⩾3-week duration assessing the effect of diets enriched with barley β-glucan compared with controlled diets on LDL-C, non-HDL-C or apoB. Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed study quality and risk of bias. Data were pooled using the generic inverse-variance method with random effects models and expressed as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed by the Cochran Q-statistic and quantified by the I2statistic. Results:: Fourteen trials (N=615) were included in the final analysis. A median dose of 6.5 and 6.9 g/day of barley β-glucan for a median duration of 4 weeks significantly reduced LDL-C (MD=−0.25 mmol/l (95% CI: −0.30, −0.20)) and non-HDL-C (MD=−0.31 mmol/l (95% CI: −0.39, −0.23)), respectively, with no significant changes to apoB levels, compared with control diets. There was evidence of considerable unexplained heterogeneity in the analysis of non-HDL-C (I2=98%). Conclusions:: Pooled analyses show that barley β-glucan has a lowering effect on LDL-C and non-HDL-C. Inclusion of barley-containing foods may be a strategy for achieving targets in CVD risk reduction.

Pre-clinical evidence indicates the potential for ginseng to reduce cardiovascular disease risk and acutely aid in blood pressure (BP) control. Clinical evidence evaluating repeated ginseng exposure, however, is controversial, triggering consumer and clinician concern. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess whether ginseng has an effect on BP. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane and CINAHL were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials ⩾4 weeks that compared the effect of ginseng on systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP) and/or mean arterial (MAP) BPs to control. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed methodological quality and risk of bias. Data were pooled using random-effects models and expressed as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed and quantified. Seventeen studies satisfied eligibility criteria (n=1381). No significant effect of ginseng on SBP, DBP and MAP was found. Stratified analysis, although not significant, appears to favour systolic BP improvement in diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity (MD=−2.76 mm Hg (95% CI=−6.40, 0.87); P=0.14). A priorisubgroup analyses revealed significant association between body mass index and treatment differences (β=−0.95 mm Hg (95% CI=−1.56, −0.34); P=0.007). Ginseng appears to have neutral vascular affects; therefore, should not be discouraged for concern of increased BP. More high-quality, randomized, controlled trials assessing BP as a primary end point, and use of standardized ginseng root or extracts are warranted to limit evidence of heterogeneity in ginseng research and to better understand its cardiovascular health potential.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of varying the volume of sugar meals on the post-prandial glycemic response (PGR). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: On six separate occasions, after an overnight fast, blood glucose concentrations were measured in eight healthy subjects (34 +/- 4 years of age, BMI 22.9 +/- 0.9 kg/m2) after the consumption of 25 g glucose, sucrose, or fructose dissolved in either 200 or 600 ml of water. Blood was obtained at fasting and then at times 15, 30, 45, 60, and 90 min after the start of the test meal. RESULTS: PGR was found to be influenced by carbohydrate type (P < 0.001). Mean response areas (min.mmol.l-1) to the three sugars were statistically different (P < 0.05). Glucose had the highest response area (90.0 +/- 8.1), followed by sucrose (61.3 +/- 5.0) and then fructose (14.7 +/- 2.8). Independent of this effect, PGR was also found to be influenced by volume dose (P < 0.01). By tripling meal volume from 200 to 600 ml, PGR areas were significantly increased for all three sugars, glucose (79.3 +/- 10.3 vs. 100.8 +/- 12.0, P = 0.035), sucrose (52.6 +/- 5.5 vs. 70 +/- 7.4, P = 0.0094), and fructose (11.0 +/- 3.8 vs. 18.4 +/- 3.9, P = 0.012). Where the effects of time (P < 0.05) and dose (P < 0.05) were determined to be independent (interaction nonsignificant) for all three sugars, this increase in volume also significantly increased glycemic concentrations at 15 min, for glucose (P = 0.033) and sucrose (P = 0.026), suggesting that changes in gastric emptying time may be a mechanism of action. CONCLUSIONS: Varying the volume of liquid sugar meals alters PGR. Understanding this concept may help to reduce variability both in the glycemic testing of foods and oral glucose tolerance testing.

Correction to: European Journal of Clinical Nutrition advance online publication 8 June 2016; doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2016.89 Since the publication of this article, the authors have noticed that the author S Blanco Mejia’s name was displayed incorrectly. The article PDF and html versions have been corrected.