Abstract
Background Higher meat intake has been associated with adverse health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, the mechanisms by which meat consumption increases CVD risk remain unclear. We used metabolomics data from a large population-based study to identify plasma metabolites associated with self-reported meat intake and associations with cardiometabolic biomarkers, subclinical CVD markers and incident CVD.
Methods We investigated the association between self-reported meat intake and 1272 plasma metabolites measured using ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry in the SCAPIS (n=8,819; aged 50-64) cohort. Meat-associated metabolites were further analyzed in relation with subclinical CVD markers in the POEM cohort (n=502, all aged 50) and with incident CVD in the EpiHealth cohort (n=2,278; aged 45-75; 107 incident cases over 9.6 years follow-up). Meat intake was assessed through food frequency questionnaire, and categorized into white, unprocessed red, and processed red meat. We analyzed associations between meat intake and metabolites, meat-associated metabolites with cardiometabolic biomarkers, and subclinical CVD markers employing linear regression, adjusting for demographics and lifestyle factors. Cox proportional hazards analysis evaluated the associations between meat-associated metabolites and CVD incident.
Results After correction for multiple testing, we identified 458, 368, and 403 metabolites associated with self-reported white, unprocessed red and processed red meat intake, respectively. Metabolites positively associated with all three meat types were related with higher plasma levels of apolipoprotein A1, C-reactive protein, and increased intima-media thickness, while metabolites negatively associated were related with higher fasting insulin levels. Processed red meat-associated metabolites were related with higher levels of fasting insulin, glycated hemoglobin, and lipoprotein(a) and were inversely related with maximal oxygen consumption. Two metabolites, 1-palmitoyl-2-linoleoyl-GPE (16:0/18:2) (HR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.62) and glutamine degradant (HR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.72), associated with higher intakes of all three meat types were also related with a higher risk of incident CVD.
Conclusion This study identified hundreds of metabolites associated with self-reported intake of different meat types. Processed red meat increasing metabolites were associated with worse glycemic measures and reduced cardiovascular function. These findings may enhance our understanding of the relationship between meat intake and CVD, providing insights into underlying mechanisms.
What is New?
Our study provides the most comprehensive analyses of self-reported meat intake and plasma metabolites, identifying hundreds of meat-associated metabolites using a large-scale epidemiological sample.
We uncovered novel metabolites associated with white, unprocessed, and processed red meat intake and their association with subclinical markers and incident CVD.
What Are the Clinical Implications?Meat-associated metabolites and their relationships with cardiometabolic biomarkers, subclinical markers, and CVD incident may highlight metabolic responses to meat intake and their potential impact on cardiometabolic health and CVD risk.
Competing Interest Statement
JA has served on advisory boards for Astella, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim, and has received lecturing fees from AstraZeneca and Novartis, all of which are unrelated to the present work. JS reports direct or indirect stock ownership in companies (Anagram kommunikation AB, Sence Research AB, Symptoms Europe AB, MinForskning AB) providing services to companies and authorities in the health sector including Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Goteborg University, Itrim, Ipsen, Janssen, Karolinska Institutet, LIF, Linkoping University, Novo Nordisk, Parexel, Pfizer, Region Stockholm, Region Uppsala, Sanofi, STRAMA, Takeda, TLV, Uppsala University, Vifor Pharma, WeMind. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.
Funding Statement
We acknowledge the financial support from the European Research Council [ERC-STG-2018-801965 (TF); ERC-CoG-2014-649021 (MO-M)], the Swedish Research Council [VR 2019-00977 (SCL), 2019-01471 (TF), 2018-02784 (MO-M), 2019-01015 (JA), 2020-00243 (JA), 2019-01236 (GE), 2022-01460 (SA)], the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation [Hjärt-Lungfonden, 20230687 (TF), , 20200711 (MO-M), 20180343 (JA)], 20200173 (GE)], the Swedish Cancer Society [Cancerfonden, 2021 (SCL)],FORMAS [2020-00989 (SA)], Erik, Karin och Gösta Selanders Stiftelse [2020 (SA)], Åke Wibergs Stiftelse [2020 (SA)], Marcus Borgström Foundation [2020 (SA)], EFSD/Novo Nordisk [2020 (SA)], EpiHealth [2022 (SA)]. The main funding body of The Swedish CArdioPulmonary bioImage Study (SCAPIS) is the Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation. The study is also funded by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, the Swedish Research Council, VINNOVA (Sweden's Innovation agency), the University of Gothenburg and Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Karolinska Institutet and Region Stockholm, Linköping University and University Hospital, Lund University and Skåne University Hospital, Umeå University and University Hospital, Uppsala University and University Hospital. We would like to acknowledge the help of Biobank Sweden and the local biobank facilities for their services in handling of biological samples and biobanking. The computations and data handling were enabled by resources in project sens2019512 provided by the National Academic Infrastructure for Supercomputing in Sweden (NAISS) at Uppsala Multidisciplinary Center for Advanced Computational Science (UPPMAX), funded by the Swedish Research Council through grant agreement no. 2022-06725. The EpiHealth study is funded as a strategic research area by the Swedish government. POEM was funded by Uppsala University Hospital.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was obtained from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (DNR 2023-07352-01, DNR 2009-057, DNR 2018-315). All participants from each of the three studies provided written informed consent.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The dataset supporting the findings of this research article was provided by the SCAPIS, EPIHEALTH, and POEM Data Access Board and are not publicly available due to confidentiality. Data can be shared upon reasonable request to the corresponding author, but only after obtaining permission from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (https://etikprovningsmyndigheten.se)
