Dataset Information

Soy isoflavones interact with calcium and contribute to blood pressure homeostasis in women: a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Estrogens and calcium regulate vascular health but caused adverse cardiovascular events in randomized trials.

Objectives

Whether phytoestrogenic soy isoflavones modulate the physiological effects of calcium on blood pressure was explored.

Design

A double-blind, randomized study assigned 99 premenopausal women to 136.6 mg isoflavones (as aglycone equivalents) and 98 to placebo for 5 days per week for up to 2 years. Blood pressure, serum calcium and urinary excretion of daidzein (DE) and genistein (GE) were measured repeatedly before and during treatment.

Results

Isoflavones did not affect blood pressure per intake dose assignment (i.e. intention-to-treat, n = 197), but significantly affected blood pressure per measured urinary excretion of isoflavones (i.e. per protocol analysis, n = 166). Isoflavones inversely moderated calcium effects on systolic blood pressure (SBP) (interaction term β-estimates: - 3.1 for DE, - 12.86 for GE, all P < 0.05), and decreased diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (β-estimates: - 0.84 for DE, - 2.82 for GE, all P < 0.05) after controlling for calcium. The net intervention effects between the maximum and no isoflavone excretion were - 17.7 and + 13.8 mmHg changes of SBP, respectively, at serum calcium of 10.61 and 8.0 mg/dL, and about 2.6 mmHg decrease of DBP.

Conclusions

Moderation by isoflavones of the physiological effect of calcium tends to normalize SBP, and this effect is most significant when calcium concentrations are at the upper and lower limits of the physiological norm. Isoflavones decrease DBP independent of calcium levels. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of this novel micronutrient effect on blood pressure homeostasis and cardiovascular health.

Trial registration

www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00204490.

SUBMITTER: Lu LW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7416691 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Multicentre trials investigating food allergies by double blind placebo controlled food challenges (DBPCFC) need standardized procedures, challenge meals and evaluation criteria. We aimed at developing a standardized approach for identifying patients with birch related soy allergy by means of DBPCFC to soy, including determination of threshold levels, in a multicentre setting. METHODS:Microbiologically stable soy challenge meals were composed of protein isolate with consistent Gly m 4 levels. Patients sensitized to main birch allergen Bet v 1 and concomitant sensitization to its soy homologue Gly m 4 underwent DBPCFC. Outcome was defined according to presence and/or absence of ten objective signs and intensity of eight subjective symptoms as measured by visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS:138 adult subjects (63.8% female, mean age 38 years) underwent DBPCFC. Challenge meals and defined evaluation criteria showed good applicability in all centres involved. 45.7% presented with objective signs and 65.2% with subjective symptoms at soy challenge. Placebo challenge meals elicited non-cardiovascular objective signs in 11.6%. In 82 (59.4%) subjects DBPCFC was judged as positive. 70.7% of DPBCFC+ showed objective signs and 85.4% subjective symptoms at soy challenge. Subjective symptoms to soy challenge meal in DBPCFC+ subjects started at significantly lower dose levels than objective signs (p < 0.001). Median cumulative eliciting doses for first objective signs in DBPCFC+ subjects were 4.7 g [0.7-24.7] and 0.7 g [0.2-4.7] total soy protein for first subjective symptoms (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:We present the hitherto largest group of adults with Bet v 1 and Gly m 4 sensitization being investigated by DBPCFC. In this type of food allergy evaluation of DBPCFC outcome should not only include monitoring of objective signs but also scoring of subjective symptoms. Our data may contribute to standardize DBPCFC in pollen-related food allergy in multicentre settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION:EudraCT: 2009-011737-27.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Treatment for epistaxis includes application of intranasal vasoconstrictors. These medications have a precaution against use in patients with hypertension. Given that many patients who present with epistaxis are hypertensive, these warnings are commonly overridden by clinical necessity. OBJECTIVE:Our aim was to determine the effects of intranasal vasoconstrictors on blood pressure. METHODS:We conducted a single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial from November 2014 through July 2016. Adult patients being discharged from the emergency department (ED) at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota) were recruited. Patients were ineligible if they had a contraindication to study medications, had a history of hypertension, were currently taking antihypertensive or antidysrhythmic medications, or had nasal abnormalities, such as epistaxis. Subjects were randomized to one of four study arms (phenylephrine 0.25%; oxymetazoline 0.05%; lidocaine 1% with epinephrine 1:100,000; or bacteriostatic 0.9% sodium chloride [saline]). Blood pressure and heart rate were measured every 5 min for 30 min. RESULTS:Sixty-eight patients were enrolled in the study; of these, 63 patients completed the study (oxymetazoline, n = 15; phenylephrine, n = 20; lidocaine with epinephrine, n = 11; saline, n = 17). We did not observe any significant differences in mean arterial pressure over time between phenylephrine and saline, oxymetazoline and saline, or lidocaine with epinephrine and saline. The mean greatest increases from baseline in mean arterial pressure, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate for each treatment group were also not significantly different from the saline group. CONCLUSIONS:Intranasal vasoconstrictors did not significantly increase blood pressure in patients without a history of hypertension. Our findings reinforce the practice of administering these medications to patients who present to the ED with epistaxis, regardless of high blood pressure.

Project description:Background and aimsAssociations between soy intake and risk of cancer have been evaluated in prospective observational studies with inconsistent results. Whether the potential anticancer effects offered by soy were attributed to soy isoflavones and soy protein still needs to be elucidated. This study aimed to comprehensively quantify the association of soy, soy isoflavones and soy protein intake with risk of cancer incidence and cancer mortality by conducting a meta-analysis of all available studies.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to 16 September 2021. Prospective cohort studies that examined the effect of soy, soy isoflavones and soy protein on cancer incidence and cancer mortality were identified. Random-effects models were used to pool the multivariable-adjusted relative risks (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The potential dose-response relations were explored by using generalized least-squares trend estimation.ResultsEighty one prospective cohort studies were included in the meta-analysis. A higher intake of soy was significantly associated with a 10% reduced risk of cancer incidence (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96). Each additional 25 g/d soy intake decreased the risk of cancer incidence by 4%. Intake of soy isoflavones was inversely associated with risk of cancer incidence (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99), whereas no significant association was observed for soy protein. The risk of cancer incidence was reduced by 4% with each 10 mg/d increment of soy isoflavones intake. Similar inverse associations were also found for soy in relation to site-specific cancers, particularly lung cancer (RR, 0.67; 95%CI, 0.52-0.86) and prostate cancer (RR, 0.88; 95%CI, 0.78-0.99). However, high intake of soy, soy isoflavones and soy protein were not associated with cancer mortality.ConclusionsHigher intake of soy and soy isoflavones were inversely associated with risk of cancer incidence, which suggested that the beneficial role of soy against cancer might be primarily attributed to soy isoflavones. These findings support recommendations to include soy as part of a healthy dietary pattern for the prevention of cancer.

Project description:AimsThe burden and health costs of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus continue to increase globally and prevention strategies in at-risk people need to be explored. Previous work, in both animal models and humans, supports the role of zinc in improving glucose homeostasis. We, therefore, aimed to test the effectiveness of zinc supplementation on glycaemic control in pre-diabetic adults.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across 10 General Practitioner (GP) practices in NSW, Australia. The trial is known as Zinc in Preventing the Progression of pre-Diabetes (ZIPPeD)Study. Pre-diabetic (haemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] 5.7-6.4%, 39-46 mmol/mol) men and women (N = 98) were all assigned to a free state government telephone health coaching service (New South Wales Get Healthy Information and Coaching Service) and then randomised to either daily 30 mg zinc gluconate or placebo. Blood tests were collected at baseline, 1, 6 and 12 months for the primary outcomes (HbA1c, fasting blood glucose (FBG)); secondary outcomes included Homeostasis Model Assessment 2 (HOMA 2) parameters, lipids, body weight, height, waist circumference, blood pressure and pulse.ResultsThe baseline-adjusted mean group difference at 6 months, expressed as treatment-placebo, (95% CI) was -0.02 (-0.14, 0.11, p = 0.78) for HbA1c and 0.17 (-0.07, 0.42; p = 0.17) for FBG, neither of which were statistically significant. There were also no significant differences between groups in any of the secondary outcomes. Zinc was well tolerated, and compliance was high (88%).ConclusionWe believe our results are consistent with other Western clinical trial studies and do not support the use of supplemental zinc in populations with a Western diet. There may still be a role for supplemental zinc in the developing world where diets may be zinc deficient.Trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12618001120268. Registered on 6 July 2018.