Cross-sectional analysis shows higher vascular inflammation in peri-urban individuals with hypertension, suggesting dietary patterns influence health risks.
Background/Objectives: Exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is linked to increased cardiovascular risk, particularly in individuals with hypertension. This study examined the association between dietary patterns, lifestyle factors, and vascular inflammation among individuals with hypertension living in rural and peri-urban areas of Chiang Mai Province, Thailand. Methods: A cross-sectional pilot study was conducted among 47 participants (23 rural, 24 peri-urban). Data on dietary intake, smoking, alcohol use, anthropometry, and blood chemistry were collected. Serum intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1), and interleukin-6 (IL-6) were measured. Partial correlation analysis was used to examine associations with lifestyle factors, adjusting for relevant covariates. Results: Peri-urban participants had significantly higher levels of ICAM-1 [83.0 vs. 50.1 ng/mL], VCAM-1 [639.3 vs. 376.5 ng/mL], and IL-6 [4.80 vs. 1.02 pg/mL] compared to rural participants. Rural individuals reported higher intakes of antioxidant-related nutrients (selenium, β-carotene, niacin, vitamins A, B6, and C), while peri-urban individuals had higher sugar intake. Sugar intake was positively associated with ICAM-1 and VCAM-1, whereas selenium and vitamin C were inversely associated with both ICAM-1 and VCAM-1, while vitamin B6 was inversely associated with VCAM-1 only. Although rural participants had a higher rate of current smoking (34.8% vs. 4.4%), smoking and alcohol use were not significantly associated with inflammatory markers. Conclusion: Rural dietary patterns may be linked to reduced vascular adhesion molecule levels. Further studies with larger samples are warranted to clarify these associations and guide lifestyle strategies for managing vascular inflammation in PM2.5-exposed individuals with hypertension.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Parklak et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: