Table 3

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

	Wheat germ-enriched bread					Control bread					Effect of wheat germ*
	N	Baseline†	N	Post-Intervention†	P value within group	N	Baseline†	N	Post-Intervention†	P value within group	Effect	(95% CI)	P value between group
Total cholesterol to mg/dL	52	175.17±31.82	50	172.98±32.4	0.147	48	174.00±32.17	48	170.00±31.38	0.100	1.20	(−4.54 to 6.95)	0.675
HDL cholesterol to mg/dL	52	60.92±15.13	50	59.38±16.07	0.010	48	60.65±15.21	48	58.38±13.77	0.012	0.14	(−1.83 to 2.12)	0.886
LDL cholesterol to mg/dL	52	97.31±26.07	50	96.92±26.22	0.853	48	97.23±25.79	48	95.21±27.08	0.356	1.74	(−3.80 to 7.28)	0.530
Triglycerides to mg/dL	52	85.13±54.67	50	83.8±42.62	0.565	48	81.10±49.96	48	82.48±59.66	0.763	−3.60	(−16.28 to 9.08)	0.571
Glucose to mg/dL‡	27	84.22±6.82	26	81.27±7.32	0.011	25	83.48±6.13	25	80.68±7.50	0.012	−0.24	(−3.28 to 2.81)	0.8765§
Insulin to µU/mL	51	7.00±3.08	50	7.04±2.83	0.729	47	6.84±3.45	48	7.32±5.75	0.524	−0.39	(−2.03 to 1.24)	0.629
HOMA-IR	51	1.46±0.68	50	1.44±0.67	0.973	47	1.43±0.78	48	1.54±1.38	0.541	0.12	(−0.49 to 0.26)	0.529
HbA1c to %¶	27	5.18±0.31	26	5.26±0.30	0.004	24	5.16±0.15	24	5.21±0.16	0.002	0.027	(−0.03 to 0.09)	0.380§
IAUC glucose to mg.min/dL	51	3399.58±2095.88	48	3017.74±1959.09	0.166	46	3379.91±2149.45	44	3334.59±2101.47	0.812	−221.13	(−901.34 to 459.08)	0.524
CRP to mg/dL	52	0.13±0.21	50	0.18±0.42	0.374	48	0.12±0.17	48	0.25±0.57	0.093	−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.