Table 6. Associations between matairesinol and secoisolariciresinol lignan intakes and cardiovascular disease risk and risk factors.
| Outcome | Author, year, reference | Study | Population characteristics | Cases (N) | p ≤0.05 | p >0.05 – 0.15 | p > 0.15 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cardiovascular disease mortality b | Milder et al (2006)76 | Prospective cohort, Zutphen, Netherlands | 570 M, elderly, 15 yr follow up | 84 | Mat onlya 0.83 RR (0.69, 1.00) CI p=0.05 [7 μg per SD unit]d |
Seco only 0.88 RR (0.71, 1.08) p = 0.23 [51 μg per SD unit]d |
|
| Coronary heart disease mortality b | Milder et al (2006)76 | Prospective cohort, Zutphen, Netherlands | M, elderly, 15 yr follow up | 570 | Mat only 0.72 RR (0.53, 0.98) CI p=0.03 [7 μg per SD unit]d |
Seco only 0.84 RR (0.61, 1.17) p = 0.31 [51 μg per SD unit]d |
|
| Cardiovascular disease incidence | Van der Schouw et al (2005)66 | Prospective, EPIC, Netherlands | 16,165 F, age 49-70 healthy, 6.25 yr follow up | 518 | 0.89 HR (0.66, 1.19) CI NS [1.39 vs 0.74 mg/d]e,f |
||
| Coronary heart disease Incidence | Van der Schouw et al (2005)66 | Prospective, EPIC, Netherlands | 16,165 F, age 49-70 healthy, 6.25 yr follow up | 371 | 0.92 HR (0.65, 1.29) CI NS [1.39 vs 0.74 mg/d]e,f |
||
| Van der Schouw et al (2005)66 | Prospective, EPIC, Netherlands | 16,165 F, age 49-70 healthy, 6.25 yr follow up sub analysis by smoking status |
n/a | 0.63 HR (0.41, 0.98) CI p for interaction = 0.01 [1.39 vs 0.74 mg/d]e,f smokers |
No association for non-smokers | ||
| Cerebrovascular disease incidence | Van der Schouw et al (2005)66 | Prospective, EPIC, Netherlands | 16,165 F, age 49-70 healthy, 6.25 yr follow up | 147 | 0.80 HR (0.45, 1.42) CI NS [1.39 vs 0.74 mg/d]e,f |
||
| Hypertension | Kreijkamp-Kaspers et al (2004)142 | Cross-sectional, EPIC, Netherlands | F, postmenopausal, age 60-75, healthy | 301 | 0.49 OR (0.18, 1.29) CI p=0.15 [2.01 vs 1.14 mg/d]d,f |
||
| Blood pressure, diastolic | Kreijkamp-Kaspers et al (2004)142 | Cross-sectional, EPIC, Netherlands | F, postmenopausal, age 60-75, healthy | 301 | -5.19 mm Hg (-11.41, 1.03) CI p=0.07 [2.01 vs 1.14 mg/d]d,f |
||
| De Kleijn et al (2002)72 | Cross-sectional, Framingham, USA | F, postmenopausal | 939 | -1.1 mg Hg (-3.2, 1.0) CI p for trend = 0.24 [0.79 vs 0.41 mg/d]e,f |
|||
| b | Milder et al (2006)76 | Prospective cohort, Zutphen, Netherlands | M, elderly, 15 yr follow up | 570 | No difference across tertiles of consumption p = 0.77 |
||
| Blood pressure, systolic | Kreijkamp-Kaspers et al (2004)142 | Cross-sectional, EPIC, Netherlands | F, postmenopausal, age 60-75, healthy | 301 | -7.92 OR (-17.91, 2.07) CI p=0.12 [2.01 vs 1.14 mg/d]d,f |
||
| De Kleijn et al (2002)72 | Cross-sectional, Framingham, USA | F, postmenopausal | 939 | -2.0 mmHg (-5.8, 1.9) CI p for trend = 0.59 [0.79 vs 0.41 mg/d]e,f |
|||
| b | Milder et al (2006)76 | Prospective cohort, Zutphen, Netherlands | M, elderly, 15 yr follow up | 570 | No difference across tertiles of consumption p = 0.47 |
||
| Cholesterol, HDL | De Kleijn et al (2002)72 | Cross-sectional, Framingham, USA | F, postmenopausal | 939 | -2.7 mg/dl (-0.39, 5.02) CI p=0.15 [0.79 vs 0.41 mg/d]e,f |
||
| Kreijkamp-Kaspers et al (2005)143 | Cross-sectional, EPIC, Netherlands | F, postmenopausal, age 60-75, healthy | 301 | 0.39 mg/dl (-8.8, 6.6) CI p for trend = 0.76 [2.01 vs 1.14 mg/d]d,f |
|||
| b | Milder et al (2006)76 | Prospective cohort, Zutphen, Netherlands | M, elderly, 15 yr follow up | 570 | No difference across tertiles of consumption p = 0.26 |
||
| Cholesterol, LDL | Van der Schouw et al (2005)144 | Cross-sectional, Health Professionals, USA | M, age 47-83 | 301 | 12.9 mg/dl (1.7, 24.1) CI p for trend = 0.01 [1.15 vs 0.39 mg/d medians]e,f |
||
| De Kleijn et al (2002)72 | Cross-sectional, Framingham, USA | F, postmenopausal | 939 | -0.37 mg/dl (-7.3, 6.6) CI p for trend = 0.84 [0.79 vs 0.41 mg/d]e,f |
|||
| Kreijkamp-Kaspers et al (2005)143 | Cross-sectional, EPIC, Netherlands | F, postmenopausal, age 60-75, healthy | 301 | -8.11 mg/dl (-25.1, 8.9) CI p for trend = 0.35 [2.01 vs 1.14 mg/d]d,f |
|||
| Cholesterol, total | Van der Schouw et al (2005)144 | Cross-sectional, Health Professionals, USA | M, age 47-83 | 468 | 11.1 mg/dl (-2.4, 24.5) CI p for trend = 0.08 [1.15 vs 0.39 mg/d medians]e,f |
||
| De Kleijn et al (2002)72 | Cross-sectional, Framingham, USA | F, postmenopausal | 939 | -2.32 mg/dl (-9.6, 5.0) CI p for trend = 0.47 [0.79 vs 0.41 mg/d]e,f |
|||
| Kreijkamp-Kaspers et al (2005)143 | Cross-sectional, EPIC, Netherlands | F, postmenopausal, age 60-75, healthy | 301 | -8.11 mg/dl (-26.6, 10.4) CI p for trend = 0.40 [2.01 vs 1.14 mg/d]d,f |
|||
| b | Milder et al (2006)76 | Prospective cohort, Zutphen, Netherlands | M, elderly, 15 yr follow up | 570 | No difference across tertiles of consumption p = 0.52 |
||
| Triglycerides | De Kleijn et al (2002)72 | Cross-sectional, Framingham, USA | F, postmenopausal | 939 | -20.4 mg/dl (-32.7, -7.96) CI p=0.001 [0.79 vs 0.41 mg/d]e,f |
||
| Kreijkamp-Kaspers et al (2005)143 | Cross-sectional, EPIC, Netherlands | F, postmenopausal, age 60-75, healthy | 301 | -2.65 mg/dl (-12.4, 11.5) CI p for trend = 0.78 [2.01 vs 1.14 mg/d]d,f |
|||
| Apolipoprotein B | Van der Schouw et al (2005)144 | Cross-sectional, Health Professionals, USA | M, age 47-83 | 468 | 10.0 mg/dl (1.6, 18.4) CI p for trend = 0.02 [1.15 vs 0.39 mg/d medians]e,f |
||
| Lipoprotein (a) | Kreijkamp-Kaspers et al (2005)143 | Cross-sectional, EPIC, Netherlands | F, postmenopausal, age 60-75, healthy | 301 | 0.47 OR (0.17, 1.31) CI p for trend = 0.18 [2.01 vs 1.14 mg/d]d,f |
||
| C-peptide | Van der Schouw et al (2005)144 | Cross-sectional, Health Professionals, USA | M, age 47-83 | 468 | -0.55 ng/dl (-0.97, -0.13) CI p for trend = 0.01 [1.15 vs 0.39 mg/d medians]e,f |
||
| Ankle brachial index | Kreijkamp-Kaspers et al (2004)142 | Cross-sectional, EPIC, Netherlands | F, postmenopausal, age 60-75, healthy | 301 | 0.01 (-0.04, 0.07 p for trend = 0.60 [2.01 vs 1.14 mg/d]d,f |
||
| Endothelial function (pimax) | Kreijkamp-Kaspers et al (2004)142 | Cross-sectional, EPIC, Netherlands | F, postmenopausal, age 60-75, healthy | 301 | -0.01 pimax (-0.08, 0.06 p for trend = 0.80 [2.01 vs 1.14 mg/d]d,f |
||
| Flow mediated dilatationc | Pellegrini et al (2010)75 | Cross-sectional, longitudinal follow-up Italy | 242 M, F, healthy, postmenopausal | 101 | Mat only 4.1% to 8.1% change p for trend = 0.016 [0.039 vs 0.009 mg/d means]e |
Seco only 4.6% to 6.8% change p for trend = 0.099 [0.625 vs 0.158 mg/d means]e |
|
| Kreijkamp-Kaspers et al (2004)142 | Cross-sectional, EPIC, Netherlands | F, postmenopausal, age 60-75, healthy | 301 | -0.09 % (-1.93, 2.12) CI p for trend = 0.92 [2.01 vs 1.14 mg/d]d,f |
|||
| Reduced aortic stiffness | Van der Schouw et al (2002)145 | Cross-sectional, EPIC, Netherlands | F, healthy, postmenopausal | 403 | -0.41 (-0.93, 0.11) CI p for trend = 0.06 [0.87 vs 0.33 mg/d]e,f |
||
| Van der Schouw et al (2002)145 | Cross-sectional, EPIC, Netherlands | F, healthy, long (20-30 years) postmenopausal time span | 180 | -0.80 (-1.54, -0.05) CI p for trend = 0.03 [0.87 vs 0.33 mg/d]e,f |
|||
| Van der Schouw et al (2002)145 | Cross-sectional, EPIC, Netherlands | F, healthy, short (8-12 years) postmenopausal time span | 199 | -0.19 (-0.95, 0.57) CI p for trend = 0.40 [0.87 vs 0.33 mg/d]e,f |
|||
| Metabolic syndrome score | De Kleijn et al (2002)72 | Cross-sectional, Framingham, USA | F, postmenopausal | 939 | -0.55 (-0.82, -0.28) CI p=0.0001 [0.79 vs 0.41 mg/d]e,f |
||
| Waist hip ratio | De Kleijn et al (2002)72 | Cross-sectional, Framingham, USA | F, postmenopausal | 939 | -0.017 (-0.030, -0.0016) CI p=0.03 [0.79 vs 0.41 mg/d]e,f |
a
All intakes “Mat & Seco” unless marked “Mat only” or “Seco only”
b
not significant for lariciresinol, pinoresinol, and total lignans (secoisolariciresinol, matairesinol, lariciresinol, pinoresinol) in Milder et al (2006)76
c
Flow mediated dilatation was not significant for lariciresinol and pinoresinol, but approached significance for total lignans (secoisolariciresinol, matairesinol, lariciresinol, pinoresinol) 4.7% to 7.5%, p for trend = 0.066, 666 μg/d median intake in Pellegrini et al (2009)75
d
Highest versus lowest tertile of intake
e
Highest versus lowest quartile of intake
f
Intake from FFQ but food items scored for Mat and Seco, analytical values were not used.
Abbreviations: M – males, F – females, CI – 95% Confidence interval, HR – Hazard rate ratio, OR – Odds ratio, RR – Rate ratio, [ ] – definition of comparison groups or per SD unit, Seco – Secoisolariciresinol, Mat – matairesinol
Underlying causes of death coded according to the International Classification of Diseases, 9th and 10th revisions (ICD-9 and ICD-10). Cardiovascular disease deaths defined as ICD-9 codes 390-459 and ICD-10 codes I20-I99, coronary heart disease deaths as ICD-9 codes 410-414 (ischemic heart disease) and 492.2 (atherosclerotic heart disease) and ICD-10 codes I20-I25, and stroke as ICD-9 codes 430-438 (ischemic and hemorrhagic cerebrovascular disease) and ICD-10 codes I60-I69 (cerebrovascular diseases).