Table 3

The effect of 4-week wheat germ-enriched bread versus control bread on cardiovascular, inflammatory and metabolic risk markers

Wheat germ-enriched breadControl breadEffect of wheat germ*
NBaseline†NPost-Intervention†P value within groupNBaseline†NPost-Intervention†P value within groupEffect(95% CI)P value between group
Total cholesterol to mg/dL52175.17±31.8250172.98±32.40.14748174.00±32.1748170.00±31.380.1001.20(−4.54 to 6.95)0.675
HDL cholesterol to mg/dL5260.92±15.135059.38±16.070.0104860.65±15.214858.38±13.770.0120.14(−1.83 to 2.12)0.886
LDL cholesterol to mg/dL5297.31±26.075096.92±26.220.8534897.23±25.794895.21±27.080.3561.74(−3.80 to 7.28)0.530
Triglycerides to mg/dL5285.13±54.675083.8±42.620.5654881.10±49.964882.48±59.660.763−3.60(−16.28 to 9.08)0.571
Glucose to mg/dL‡2784.22±6.822681.27±7.320.0112583.48±6.132580.68±7.500.012−0.24(−3.28 to 2.81)0.8765§
Insulin to µU/mL517.00±3.08507.04±2.830.729476.84±3.45487.32±5.750.524−0.39(−2.03 to 1.24)0.629
HOMA-IR511.46±0.68501.44±0.670.973471.43±0.78481.54±1.380.5410.12(−0.49 to 0.26)0.529
HbA1c to %¶275.18±0.31265.26±0.300.004245.16±0.15245.21±0.160.0020.027(−0.03 to 0.09)0.380§
IAUC glucose to mg.min/dL513399.58±2095.88483017.74±1959.090.166463379.91±2149.45443334.59±2101.470.812−221.13(−901.34 to 459.08)0.524
CRP to mg/dL520.13±0.21500.18±0.420.374480.12±0.17480.25±0.570.093−0.07(−0.26 to 0.13)0.481
  • *Intervention effects were analysed using linear mixed model for repeated measures with compound symmetry as covariance structure.

  • †Mean±SD.

  • CRP, C-reactive protein; HbA1c, glycated haemoglobin; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; HOMA-IR, homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance; IAUC, incremental area under the curve: LDL, low-density lipoprotein.

  • ‡The intervention–sequence interaction was significant (−5.73 [−10.00,–1.46], p=0.010); the intervention effect was 2.07 in the first sequence and −3.66 in the second sequence.

  • §Only the first period was used in the analysis due the existence of carryover effect. Differences in changes within and between groups were compared by using the paired and unpaired t-test, respectively.

  • ¶The intervention–sequence interaction was significant (0.15 [0.07, 0.23]; p<0.001); the intervention effect was −0.04 in the first sequence and 0.12 in the second sequence.