| Literature DB >> 28610568 |
Zhenghe Wang1, Changwei Li2, Zhongping Yang1, Jun Ma3, Zhiyong Zou4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To explore the associations between the Chinese famine exposure in early life and the dyslipidemia in adulthood.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese famine; Dyslipidemia; Fetal malnutrition; Gender difference
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28610568 PMCID: PMC5470181 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-017-4421-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1Flowchart on the sample selecting methods at each step
Basic characteristics of the study population according to the Chinese famine exposure
| Variables | Non-exposed cohort | Fetal-exposed cohort | Infant-exposed cohort | Preschool-exposed cohort |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 383 (46.5) | 381 (47.9) | 277 (51.7) | 310 (52.0) |
| Female | 439 (53.5) | 415 (52.1) | 259 (48.3) | 286 (48.0) |
| Area | ||||
| Severely | 514 (62.5) | 495 (62.1) | 339 (63.2) | 377 (63.1) |
| Less severely | 308 (37.5) | 302 (37.9) | 197 (36.8) | 220 (36.9) |
| Smoking n (%)** | ||||
| Never smoking | 528 (64.6) | 487 (62.0) | 310 (58.2) | 320 (53.7) |
| Former smoking | 79 (9.7) | 72 (9.2) | 59 (11.1) | 77 (12.9) |
| Current smoking | 210 (25.7) | 227 (28.9) | 164 (30.8) | 199 (33.4) |
| Drinking n(%) | ||||
| Never drinking | 578 (70.9) | 548 (69.7) | 377 (70.9) | 397 (66.6) |
| Former drinking | 8 (1.0) | 8 (1.0) | 10 (1.9) | 14 (2.3) |
| Current drinking | 229 (28.1) | 230 (29.3) | 145 (27.3) | 185 (31.0) |
| BMI mean(SD) kg/m2** | 24.40 (3.90) | 24.29 (4.15) | 23.73 (3.81)† | 23.48 (3.58)‡ |
| Age mean(SD) year** | 47.37 (0.48) | 50.91 (0.67)‡ | 53.17 (0.37)‡ | 55.14 (0.35)‡ |
| TC mean(SD) mmol/L** | 4.77 (0.91) | 4.98 (0.95)‡ | 4.99 (0.94)‡ | 5.01 (0.99)‡ |
| TG mean(SD) mmol/L* | 1.30 (1.79) | 1.39 (1.83) | 1.28 (1.75) | 1.25 (1.71) |
| HDL mean(SD)mmol/L | 1.23 (1.31) | 1.20 (1.37) | 1.24 (1.39) | 1.27 (1.34) |
| LDL mean(SD)mmol/L**,# | 2.79 (0.82) | 2.95 (0.93)†, $ | 2.99 (0.86)‡, $ | 3.02 (0.86)‡, $ |
TC total cholesterol, TG triglyceride, HDL high density lipoprotein cholesterol, LDL low density lipoprotein cholesterol, BMI body mass index, SD standard deviation
*Mean values or distribution were significantly different among the four birth cohorts (ANOVA or χ2-test; P < 0.01)
**Mean values or distribution were significantly different among the four birth cohorts (ANOVA or χ2 test; P < 0.001)
†Mean values were significantly different between exposed cohort and non-exposed cohort (Dunnett’s, t-test, P < 0.05)
‡Mean values were significantly different between exposed cohorts and non-exposed cohort (Dunnett’s, t-test, P < 0.01)
#Mean values were significantly different as assessed by ANCOVA with lipid profile as a dependent variable and age as a covariate among the four birth cohorts (P < 0.05)
$Mean values were significantly different by ANCOVA with lipid profiles as a dependent variable and age as a covariate between exposed cohorts and non-exposed cohort (P < 0.05)
Risk of dyslipidemia among famine exposed cohorts compared with the non-exposed cohort
| Variables | Non-exposed cohort | Fetal-exposed cohort | Infant-exposed cohort | Preschool-exposed cohort |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elevated TC ≥ 6.216 mmol/L; 240 mg/dL (%) | 4.3 | 7.5 | 6.9 | 7.5 |
|
| 0.006 | 0.035 | 0.009 | |
| Odds ratio (95% CI)a | Ref. | 1.83 (1.19–2.81) | 1.67 (1.04–2.68) | 1.83 (1.16–2.89) |
|
| 0.007 | 0.028 | 0.006 | |
| Odds ratio (95% CI)b | Ref. | 1.80 (1.17–2.77) | 1.71 (1.06–2.75) | 1.89 (1.23–2.31) |
| Low HDL cholesterol <1.036 mmol/L; 40 mg/dL (%) | 15.9 | 18.9 | 16.6 | 15.7 |
|
| 0.111 | 0.744 | 0.922 | |
| Odds ratio (95% CI)a | Ref. | 1.23 (0.95–1.60) | 1.05 (0.78–1.41) | 0.92 (0.74–1.32) |
|
| 0.152 | 0.867 | 0.816 | |
| Odds ratio (95% CI)b | Ref. | 1.21 (0.93–1.56) | 1.03 (0.76–1.38) | 0.97 (0.72–1.29) |
| Elevated TG ≥ 2.25 mmol/L; 200 mg/dL (%) | 10.1 | 12.8 | 10.1 | 10.1 |
|
| 0.088 | 0.989 | 0.977 | |
| Odds ratio (95% CI)a | Ref. | 1.31 (0.96–1.78) | 1.00 (0.70–1.43) | 1.00 (0.70–1.41) |
|
| 0.136 | 0.919 | 0.924 | |
| Odds ratio (95% CI)b | Ref. | 1.27 (0.93–1.72) | 0.92 (0.68–1.41) | 0.98 (0.69–1.40) |
| Elevated LDL cholesterol ≥4.138 mmol/L; 260 mg/dL (%) | 3.4 | 7.3 | 6.0 | 6.4 |
|
| 0.001 | 0.026 | 0.010 | |
| Odds ratio (95% CI)a | Ref. | 2.23 (1.40–3.53) | 1.80 (1.07–3.03) | 1.93 (1.17–3.18) |
|
| 0.001 | 0.022 | 0.008 | |
| Odds ratio (95% CI)b | Ref. | 2.20 (1.38–3.49) | 1.84 (1.09–3.10) | 1.98 (1.20–3.27) |
| Prevalence dyslipidemia: TC | 15.7 | 23.1 | 22.0 | 18.6 |
|
| <0.001 | 0.003 | 0.151 | |
| Odds ratio (95% CI)a | Ref. | 1.62 (1.27–2.09) | 1.53 (1.16–2.02) | 1.23 (0.93–1.62) |
|
| <0.001 | 0.003 | 0.169 | |
| Odds ratio (95% CI)b | Ref. | 1.58 (1.23–2.03) | 1.52 (1.15–2.00) | 1.22 (0.92–1.61) |
CI Confidence Interval, Ref Reference
aEvaluating the overall risk of three famine exposed cohorts with non-exposed as a reference by the binary logistic regression model
bEvaluating the risk of three exposed cohorts with non-exposed as a reference by the binary logistic regression model after adjusted for gender and current family economic status
Prevalence of dyslipidemia in birth cohorts of the Chinese famine areas
| Variables | Non-exposed cohort | Fetal-exposed cohort | Infant-exposed cohort | Preschool-exposed cohort |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Severely affected famine area | ||||
| Prevalence (%) | 15.6 | 23.6 | 21.8 | 19.6 |
|
| 0.001 | 0.020 | 0.114 | |
| Odds ratio (95% CI)a | Ref. | 1.68 (1.22–2.30) | 1.52 (1.07–2.15) | 1.33 (0.94–1.88) |
|
| 0.002 | 0.024 | 0.124 | |
| Odds ratio (95% CI)b | Ref. | 1.63 (1.19–2.24) | 1.50 (1.05–2.13) | 1.32 (0.93–1.87) |
| Less severely affected famine area | ||||
| Prevalence (%) | 15.9 | 22.5 | 22.8 | 16.8 |
|
| 0.039 | 0.050 | 0.780 | |
| Odds ratio (95% CI)a | Ref. | 1.54 (1.02–2.31) | 1.57 (1.00–2.46) | 1.07 (0.67–1.71) |
|
| 0.058 | 0.063 | 0.827 | |
| Odds ratio (95% CI)b | Ref. | 1.49 (0.84–2.18) | 1.41 (0.82–2.40) | 1.07 (0.61–1.86) |
|
| Ref. | 0.995 | 0.640 | 0.168 |
|
| Ref. | 0.950 | 0.583 | 0.122 |
CI Confidence Interval, Ref Reference
aEvaluating the overall risk of three famine exposure cohorts with non-exposed as a reference by the binary logistic regression model
bEvaluating the risk of three famine exposure cohorts with non-exposed as reference by the binary logistic regression model after adjusted for gender and current family economic status
Prevalence rate of dyslipidemia by gender and birth cohorts
| Variables | Non-exposed cohort | Fetal-exposed cohort | Infant-exposed cohort | Preschool-exposed cohort |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | ||||
| Prevalence (%) | 17.8 | 23.4 | 22.4 | 16.5 |
|
| 0.058 | 0.145 | 0.64 | |
| Odds ratio (95%CI)a | Ref. | 1.41 (0.99–2.00) | 1.33 (0.91–1.96) | 0.91 (0.61–1.35) |
|
| 0.080 | 0.174 | 0.617 | |
| Odds ratio (95%CI)b | Ref. | 1.37 (0.96–1.96) | 1.31 (0.89–1.93) | 0.90 (0.61–1.35) |
| Female | ||||
| Prevalence (%) | 13.9 | 22.9 | 22.0 | 21.0 |
|
| 0.001 | 0.006 | 0.013 | |
| Odds ratio (95%CI)a | Ref. | 1.84 (1.29–2.62) | 1.75 (1.17–2.61) | 1.65 (1.11–2.44) |
|
| 0.001 | 0.006 | 0.015 | |
| Odds ratio (95%CI)b | Ref. | 1.80 (1.26–2.57) | 1.75 (1.17–2.62) | 1.63 (1.10–2.42) |
|
| 0.294 | 0.336 | 0.038 | |
|
| Ref. | 0.281 | 0.301 | 0.038 |
CI Confidence Interval, Ref Reference
aEvaluating the overall risk of three exposed cohorts with non-exposed as a reference by the binary logistic regression model
bEvaluating the risk of three exposed cohorts with non-exposed as a reference by the binary logistic regression model after adjusted for current family economic status