Sonia Blanco Mejia

Dr. Sonia Blanco Mejia

1. Department of Nutritional Sciences, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A8, Canada
+1
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

18Years (2009-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
5 February 2019 in Nutrients
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Laura ChiavaroliLaura Chiavaroli
Laura Chiavaroli
EVEffie Viguiliouk
Effie Viguiliouk
SNStephanie K. Nishi
Stephanie K. Nishi
SMSonia Blanco Mejia
Sonia Blanco Mejia
Dario RahelićDario Rahelić
Dario Rahelić
John SievenpiperJohn Sievenpiper
John Sievenpiper
Background: The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) dietary pattern, which emphasizes fruit, vegetables, fat-free/low-fat dairy, whole grains, nuts and legumes, and limits saturated fat, cholesterol, red and processed meats, sweets, added sugars, salt and sugar-sweetened beverages, is widely recommended by international diabetes and heart association guidelines. Objective: To summarize the available evidence for the update of the European Association of the Study of Diabetes (EASD) guidelines, we conducted an umbrella review of existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach of the relation of the DASH dietary pattern with cardiovascular disease and other cardiometabolic outcomes in prospective cohort studies and its effect on blood pressure and other cardiometabolic risk factors in controlled trials in individuals with and without diabetes. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through 3 January 2019. We included systematic reviews and meta-analyses assessing the relation of the DASH dietary pattern with cardiometabolic disease outcomes in prospective cohort studies and the effect on cardiometabolic risk factors in randomized and non-randomized controlled trials. Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed the risk of bias of individual studies. The primary outcome was incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the prospective cohort studies and systolic blood pressure in the controlled trials. Secondary outcomes included incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes in prospective cohort studies and other established cardiometabolic risk factors in controlled trials. If the search did not identify an existing systematic review and meta-analysis on a pre-specified outcome, then we conducted our own systematic review and meta-analysis. The evidence was summarized as risk ratios (RR) for disease incidence outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for risk factor outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results: We identified three systematic reviews and meta-analyses of 15 unique prospective cohort studies (n = 942,140) and four systematic reviews and meta-analyses of 31 unique controlled trials (n = 4,414) across outcomes. We conducted our own systematic review and meta-analysis of 2 controlled trials (n = 65) for HbA1c. The DASH dietary pattern was associated with decreased incident cardiovascular disease (RR, 0.80 (0.76–0.85)), coronary heart disease (0.79 (0.71–0.88)), stroke (0.81 (0.72–0.92)), and diabetes (0.82 (0.74–0.92)) in prospective cohort studies and decreased systolic (MD, −5.2 mmHg (95% CI, −7.0 to −3.4)) and diastolic (−2.60 mmHg (−3.50 to −1.70)) blood pressure, Total-C (−0.20 mmol/L (−0.31 to −0.10)), LDL-C (−0.10 mmol/L (−0.20 to −0.01)), HbA1c (−0.53% (−0.62, −0.43)), fasting blood insulin (−0.15 μU/mL (−0.22 to −0.08)), and body weight (−1.42 kg (−2.03 to −0.82)) in controlled trials. There was no effect on HDL-C, triglycerides, fasting blood glucose, HOMA-IR, or CRP. The certainty of the evidence was moderate for SBP and low for CVD incidence and ranged from very low to moderate for the secondary outcomes. Conclusions: Current evidence allows for the conclusion that the DASH dietary pattern is associated with decreased incidence of cardiovascular disease and improves blood pressure with evidence of other cardiometabolic advantages in people with and without diabetes. More research is needed to improve the certainty of the estimates.

26 November 2012 in Archives of internal medicine (1960)
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
DJDavid Jenkins
David Jenkins
CKCyril W. C. Kendall
Cyril W. C. Kendall
LALivia S. A. Augustin
Livia S. A. Augustin
SMSandra Mitchell
Sandra Mitchell
SSSandhya Sahye-Pudaruth
Sandhya Sahye-Pudaruth
RJRobert G. Josse
Robert G. Josse
Low glycemic index (GI) foods have been shown to improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM).1,2 Legumes, also known as pulses (dried beans, chick peas, and lentils), were the first class of foods recognized as having low GI values3 and have been recommended in many national DM guidelines.4-6 However, few studies have assessed the effect of legumes in DM,7 even fewer have documented the quantity used to improve glycemic control, and none have reported their effect on cardiovascular risk.8 Not only are legumes good sources of slowly digested starch, but they are also relatively high in fiber and vegetable protein. Both fiber, notably viscous fiber, and also vegetable protein, specifically legume protein containing the 7S globulin fraction, are known to lower serum cholesterol levels.9-12 Furthermore, increased intakes of fiber9 and substitution of vegetable for animal proteins, as occur with increased legume consumption, have been associated with reductions in blood pressure (BP).13 In this respect, consumption of legumes, especially in the context of hypocaloric diets, also resulted in lower BP in patients without DM.14-17 The potential for reduction in coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factors in patients with type 2 DM by a dietary change, such as increased legume consumption, aimed at improving glycemic control is particularly relevant at a time when pharmacologic approaches to achieve improved glycemic control have not resulted in improved cardiovascular outcomes in the short term.18

6 October 2020 in Journal of the American Heart Association
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AZAndreea Zurbau
Andreea Zurbau
FAFei Au‐Yeung
Fei Au‐Yeung
SMSonia Blanco Mejia
Sonia Blanco Mejia
TKTauseef A. Khan
Tauseef A. Khan
VVVladimir Vuksan
Vladimir Vuksan
John SievenpiperJohn Sievenpiper
John Sievenpiper
Background: Public health policies reflect concerns that certain fruit sources may not have the intended benefits and that vegetables should be preferred to fruit. We assessed the relation of fruit and vegetable sources with cardiovascular outcomes using a systematic review and meta‐analysis of prospective cohort studies. Methods and Results: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane were searched through June 3, 2019. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed study quality (Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale). Data were pooled (fixed effects), and heterogeneity (Cochrane‐Q and I 2 ) and certainty of the evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) were assessed. Eighty‐one cohorts involving 4 031 896 individuals and 125 112 cardiovascular events were included. Total fruit and vegetables, fruit, and vegetables were associated with decreased cardiovascular disease (risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.89–0.96]; 0.91 [0.88–0.95]; and 0.94 [0.90–0.97], respectively), coronary heart disease (0.88 [0.83–0.92]; 0.88 [0.84–0.92]; and 0.92 [0.87–0.96], respectively), and stroke (0.82 [0.77–0.88], 0.82 [0.79–0.85]; and 0.88 [0.83–0.93], respectively) incidence. Total fruit and vegetables, fruit, and vegetables were associated with decreased cardiovascular disease (0.89 [0.85–0.93]; 0.88 [0.86–0.91]; and 0.87 [0.85–0.90], respectively), coronary heart disease (0.81 [0.72–0.92]; 0.86 [0.82–0.90]; and 0.86 [0.83–0.89], respectively), and stroke (0.73 [0.65–0.81]; 0.87 [0.84–0.91]; and 0.94 [0.90–0.99], respectively) mortality. There were greater benefits for citrus, 100% fruit juice, and pommes among fruit sources and allium, carrots, cruciferous, and green leafy among vegetable sources. No sources showed an adverse association. The certainty of the evidence was “very low” to “moderate,” with the highest for total fruit and/or vegetables, pommes fruit, and green leafy vegetables. Conclusions: Fruits and vegetables are associated with cardiovascular benefit, with some sources associated with greater benefit and none showing an adverse association. Registration: URL: https://www.clini​caltr​ials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03394339.

7 April 2014 in Canadian Medical Association Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
VHVanessa Ha
Vanessa Ha
John SievenpiperJohn Sievenpiper
John Sievenpiper
RSRussell de Souza
Russell de Souza
VJViranda H. Jayalath
Viranda H. Jayalath
AMArash Mirrahimi
Arash Mirrahimi
DJDavid J.A. Jenkins
David J.A. Jenkins
Background: Evidence from controlled trials encourages the intake of dietary pulses (beans, chickpeas, lentils and peas) as a method of improving dyslipidemia, but heart health guidelines have stopped short of ascribing specific benefits to this type of intervention or have graded the beneficial evidence as low. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the effect of dietary pulse intake on established therapeutic lipid targets for cardiovascular risk reduction. Methods: We searched electronic databases and bibliographies of selected trials for relevant articles published through Feb. 5, 2014. We included RCTs of at least 3 weeks’ duration that compared a diet emphasizing dietary pulse intake with an isocaloric diet that did not include dietary pulses. The lipid targets investigated were low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, apolipoprotein B and non–high-density lipoprotein (non-HDL) cholesterol. We pooled data using a random-effects model. Results: We identified 26 RCTs (n = 1037) that satisfied the inclusion criteria. Diets emphasizing dietary pulse intake at a median dose of 130 g/d (about 1 serving daily) significantly lowered LDL cholesterol levels compared with the control diets (mean difference −0.17 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval −0.25 to −0.09 mmol/L). Treatment effects on apolipoprotein B and non-HDL cholesterol were not observed. Interpretation: Our findings suggest that dietary pulse intake significantly reduces LDL cholesterol levels. Trials of longer duration and higher quality are needed to verify these results. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01594567.

1 June 2019 in The Journal of Nutrition
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
SMSonia Blanco Mejia
Sonia Blanco Mejia
MMMark Messina
Mark Messina
SLSiying S Li
Siying S Li
EVEffie Viguiliouk
Effie Viguiliouk
LCLaura Chiavaroli
Laura Chiavaroli
DJDavid Jenkins
David Jenkins

1 October 2015 in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
VJViranda H Jayalath
Viranda H Jayalath
RSRussell de Souza
Russell de Souza
VHVanessa Ha
Vanessa Ha
AMArash Mirrahimi
Arash Mirrahimi
SMSonia Blanco Mejia
Sonia Blanco Mejia
John SievenpiperJohn Sievenpiper
John Sievenpiper
Background: The role of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) that contain free or bound fructose in the pathogenesis of hypertension remains unclear.Objec