背景:已提出个性化营养(PN)作为一种策略,以提高饮食建议的有效性并最终改善健康状况。
目的:我们旨在评估在电子商务工具中加入基于组学的PN是否能改善普通人群的饮食行为和代谢状况。
方法:21周并行,单盲,随机干预包括193名成年人,按照地中海饮食建议分配到对照组(n=57,完成者=36),PN(n=70,完成者=45),或个性化计划(PP,n=68,完成者=53)将行为改变计划与PN建议集成在一起。干预使用代谢组学,蛋白质组学,和遗传数据,以帮助参与者在模拟的电子商务零售商门户中创建个性化的购物清单。主要结果是地中海饮食依从性筛选器(MEDAS)评分;次要结果包括生物特征和代谢标记以及饮食习惯。
结果:根据脂质生物标志物对志愿者进行了评分系统分类,碳水化合物代谢,炎症,氧化应激,和微生物群,并在PN和PP组中提供相应的饮食建议。干预措施显著提高了所有志愿者的MEDAS评分(对照组-3分;95%置信区间[CI]:2.2,3.8;PN-2.7分;95%CI:2.0,3.3;和PP-2.8分;95%CI:2.1,3.4;q<0.001)。经过多重比较调整后,PN组和对照组之间的饮食习惯或健康参数没有显着差异。然而,个性化建议显着(错误发现率<0.05),并选择性地增强了用碳水化合物代谢生物标志物计算的得分(β:-0.37;95%CI:-0.56,-0.18),氧化应激(β:-0.37;95%CI:-0.60,-0.15),微生物群(β:-0.38;95%CI:-0.63,-0.15),与对照饮食相比,炎症(β:-0.78;95%CI:-1.24,-0.31)。
结论:与一般建议相比,在类似电子商务的工具中整合个性化策略并没有增强对地中海饮食的依从性或改善健康指标。该方法取得了良好的结果,并保证了更多的研究进一步促进其在PN中的应用。该试验在clinicaltrials.gov注册为NCT04641559(https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04641559?cond=NCT04641559&rank=1)。
Personalized nutrition (PN) has been proposed as a strategy to increase the effectiveness of dietary recommendations and ultimately improve health status.
We aimed to assess whether including omics-based PN in an e-commerce tool improves dietary behavior and metabolic profile in general population.
A 21-wk parallel, single-blinded, randomized intervention involved 193 adults assigned to a control group following Mediterranean diet recommendations (n = 57, completers = 36), PN (n = 70, completers = 45), or personalized plan (PP, n = 68, completers = 53) integrating a behavioral change program with PN recommendations. The intervention used metabolomics, proteomics, and genetic data to assist participants in creating personalized shopping lists in a simulated e-commerce retailer portal. The primary outcome was the Mediterranean diet adherence screener (MEDAS) score; secondary outcomes included biometric and metabolic markers and dietary habits.
Volunteers were categorized with a scoring system based on biomarkers of lipid, carbohydrate metabolism, inflammation, oxidative stress, and microbiota, and dietary recommendations delivered accordingly in the PN and PP groups. The intervention significantly increased MEDAS scores in all volunteers (control-3 points; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.2, 3.8; PN-2.7 points; 95% CI: 2.0, 3.3; and PP-2.8 points; 95% CI: 2.1, 3.4; q < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in dietary habits or health parameters between PN and control groups after adjustment for multiple comparisons. Nevertheless, personalized recommendations significantly (false discovery rate < 0.05) and selectively enhanced the scores calculated with biomarkers of carbohydrate metabolism (β: -0.37; 95% CI: -0.56, -0.18), oxidative stress (β: -0.37; 95% CI: -0.60, -0.15), microbiota (β: -0.38; 95% CI: -0.63, -0.15), and inflammation (β: -0.78; 95% CI: -1.24, -0.31) compared with control diet.
Integration of personalized strategies within an e-commerce-like tool did not enhance adherence to Mediterranean diet or improved health markers compared with general recommendations. The metabotyping approach showed promising results and more research is guaranteed to further promote its application in PN. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04641559 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04641559?cond=NCT04641559&rank=1).