The Effect of Dietary Fibre on Gut Microbiota, Lipid Profile, and Inflammatory Markers in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND

A disequilibrium of the gut microbial community has been closely associated with systemic inflammation and metabolic syndromes including type 2 diabetes. While low fibre and high fat diets may lead to dysbiosis of the gut microbiome as a result of the loss of useful microbes, it has been reported that a high fibre diet may prevent the fermentation of protein and may promote eubiosis of gut microbiota.

AIM

This review aims to evaluate the effect of dietary fibre (DF) on gut microbiota, lipid profile, and inflammatory markers in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

The PRISMA framework was relied on to conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis. Searches were carried out using electronic databases and reference list of articles.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included in the systematic review, while ten studies were included in the meta-analysis. The findings revealed five distinct areas including the effects of DF on (a) gut microbiota (122 participants); (b) lipopolysaccharides (LPS, 79 participants) and lipopolysaccharides binding protein (LBP, 81 participants); (c) lipid profile; (d) inflammatory markers; and (e) body mass index (BMI, 319 participants). The relative abundance of increased by 0.73 (95% CI: 0.57, 0.89) in the DF group in contrast to the control ( < 0.05). With respect to LPS, the level was lower in the DF group than the control and the difference was significant ( < 0.05). The standardised mean difference for LPS was -0.45 (95% CI: -0.90, -0.01) although the difference between the two groups in relation to LBP was not significant ( = 0.08) and the mean difference was 0.92 (95% CI: -0.12, 1.95). While there was a decrease of -1.05 (95% CI: -2.07, -0.02) with respect to total cholesterol (356 participants) in the DF group as compared with the control ( < 0.05), both groups were not significantly different ( > 0.05) in the other lipid parameters. The difference between the groups was significant ( < 0.05) in relation to C-reactive protein, and the mean difference was 0.43 (95% CI: 0.02, 0.84). This could be due to the short duration of the included studies and differences in participants' diets including the amount of dietary fibre supplements. However, the groups were not significantly different ( > 0.05) with respect to the other inflammatory markers. The meta-analysis of the BMI showed that the DF group decreased by -0.57 (95% CI: -1.02, -0.12) as compared with the control and this was significant ( < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

DF significantly ( < 0.05) increased the relative abundance of and significantly decreased ( < 0.05) LPS, total cholesterol, and BMI as compared with the control. However, DF did not seem to have an effect that was significant on LBP, triglyceride, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, IL-6, TNF-α, adiponectin, and leptin. These findings have implications for public health in relation to the use of dietary fibre in nutritional interventions and as strategies for managing type 2 diabetes.