| Literature DB >> 29098427 |
Jing Guo1,2, Ditte A Hobbs3,2, John R Cockcroft4, Peter C Elwood5, Janet E Pickering1, Julie A Lovegrove6,7,8, David I Givens1,2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The association between egg consumption and cardiovascular disease (CVD) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) remains controversial. We investigated the association between egg consumption and risk of CVD (primary outcome), T2D and mortality in the Caerphilly prospective cohort study (CAPS) and National Diet and Nutritional Survey (NDNS).Entities:
Keywords: All-cause mortality; Cardiovascular disease; Eggs; Impaired glucose tolerance; Type 2 diabetes
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29098427 PMCID: PMC6267402 DOI: 10.1007/s00394-017-1566-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Nutr ISSN: 1436-6207 Impact factor: 5.614
Fig. 1Timeline of the caerphilly prospective cohort study
Baseline characteristics of participants from the caerphilly prospective cohort study according to egg consumption
| Characteristics | Egg consumption ( |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (0 ≤ n ≤ 1) | (1 < n ≤ 2) | (2 < n ≤ 3) | (3 < n < 5) | (n ≥ 5) | ||
| Total subjects, | 274 | 464 | 469 | 318 | 256 | |
| Age, years | 61.5 ± 4.6 | 61.9 ± 4.3 | 61.7 ± 4.5 | 61.7 ± 4.5 | 61.6 ± 4.4 | 0.93 |
| BMI, kg/m | 26.5 ± 3.5 | 26.5 ± 3.4 | 26.7 ± 3.7 | 26.9 ± 4.0 | 27.1 ± 4.2 | 0.03 |
| Energy expenditure, kJ/day | 1440 ± 1557 | 1421 ± 1426 | 1551 ± 1651 | 1659 ± 1618 | 1850 ± 2042 | 0.001 |
| Manual workers, % | 53.3 | 59.7 | 63.5 | 70.8 | 80.1 | < 0.001 |
| Family history of MI, % | 43.2 | 38.6 | 38.4 | 30.4 | 36.7 | 0.02 |
| History of hypertension, % | 28.8 | 26.9 | 29.2 | 31.1 | 29.7 | 0.40 |
| History of diabetes, % | 3.3 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 5.3 | 3.9 | 0.07 |
| Current smokers, % | 22.6 | 26.9 | 36.2 | 43.4 | 48.0 | < 0.001 |
| Total energy intake, kJ/day | 7449 ± 1890 | 8074 ± 1873 | 8547 ± 2051 | 8988 ± 2132 | 9821 ± 2578 | < 0.001 |
| Fat, % of total energy | 33.9 | 35.1 | 35.8 | 36.5 | 37.1 | < 0.001 |
| Saturated fat, % of total energy | 14.6 | 15.0 | 15.5 | 15.9 | 16.1 | < 0.001 |
| Protein, % of total energy | 14.7 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 14.2 | 14.5 | 0.19 |
| Carbohydrates, % of total energy | 49.3 | 48.3 | 47.6 | 47.1 | 45.9 | < 0.001 |
| Fibre (vegetable sources)b, g/day | 11.4 ± 0.5 | 10.9 ± 0.5 | 11.1 ± 0.6 | 11.2 ± 0.6 | 11.3 ± 0.7 | 0.02 |
| Fibre (cereal sources)b, g/day | 10.8 ± 1.2 | 10.3 ± 1.1 | 10.0 ± 1.3 | 9.3 ± 1.3 | 9.2 ± 1.6 | < 0.001 |
| Sugarb, g/day | 76.8 ± 24.1 | 82.2 ± 23.9 | 87.3 ± 26.1 | 93.6 ± 27.2 | 104.3 ± 32.9 | < 0.001 |
| Fruitb, number/week | 9.3 ± 0.5 | 8.3 ± 0.5 | 7.9 ± 0.6 | 7.4 ± 0.6 | 7.7 ± 0.7 | < 0.001 |
| Vegetableb, times/week | 10.7 ± 4.7 | 10.0 ± 4.6 | 10.5 ± 4.7 | 10.6 ± 4.8 | 10.3 ± 4.8 | 0.99 |
| Red meatb, times/week | 17.4 ± 0.9 | 14.9 ± 0.9 | 14.8 ± 1.0 | 14.3 ± 1.1 | 14.8 ± 1.3 | < 0.001 |
| Ethanol intake, ml/week | 15.6 ± 21.5 | 16.2 ± 20.3 | 17.8 ± 22.5 | 17.3 ± 19.7 | 20.5 ± 22.8 | 0.010 |
All values are mean ± SD
a P-trend was assessed by linear regression (continuous variables) or by logistic regression (categorical variables)
bEnergy-adjusted values
Longitudinal study of incidence of stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure and all-cause mortality according to egg consumption of all subjects from the caerphilly prospective cohort study
| Characteristics | Egg consumption ( |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (0 ≤ | (1 < | (2 < | (3 < | ( | ||
| Total subjects, | 274 | 464 | 469 | 318 | 256 | |
| Total CVD events | ||||||
| No. of events | 103 | 166 | 195 | 129 | 122 | |
| HR (non-adjust) | 1 | 0.95 (0.74, 1.21) | 1.12 (0.88, 1.42) | 1.08 (0.83, 1.40) | 1.37 (1.05, 1.78) | 0.007 |
| HR (adjusted Model 1)a | 1 | 0.97 (0.75, 1.24) | 1.11 (0.87, 1.42) | 1.02 (0.78, 1.34) | 1.26 (0.95, 1.67) | 0.09 |
| HR (adjusted Model 2)b | 1 | 0.98 (0.76, 1.26) | 1.14 (0.89, 1.46) | 1.01 (0.77, 1.33) | 1.25 (0.94, 1.66) | 0.12 |
| Stroke | ||||||
| No. of events | 33 | 57 | 57 | 48 | 53 | |
| HR (non-adjust) | 1 | 1.01 (0.66, 1.56) | 1.01 (0.66, 1.55) | 1.27 (0.82, 1.98) | 1.82 (1.18, 2.80) | 0.002 |
| HR (adjusted Model 1)a | 1 | 0.99 (0.65, 1.53) | 0.97 (0.63, 1.50) | 1.14 (0.72, 1.81) | 1.58 (1.00, 2.52) | 0.03 |
| HR (adjusted Model 2)b | 1 | 1.01 (0.65, 1.56) | 1.00 (0.64, 1.55) | 1.15 (0.72, 1.84) | 1.60 (1.00, 2.57) | 0.04 |
| Myocardial infarction | ||||||
| No. of events | 73 | 117 | 137 | 86 | 64 | |
| HR (non-adjust) | 1 | 0.94 (0.70, 1.26) | 1.11 (0.83, 1.47) | 1.00 (0.73, 1.37) | 0.94 (0.67, 1.31) | 0.98 |
| HR (adjusted Model 1) | 1 | 0.96 (0.71, 1.29) | 1.10 (0.83, 1.48) | 0.99 (0.71, 1.37) | 0.90 (0.63, 1.29) | 0.75 |
| HR (adjusted Model 2) | 1 | 0.97 (0.72, 1.31) | 1.14 (0.85, 1.52) | 1.01 (0.72, 1.40) | 0.91 (0.64, 1.31) | 0.80 |
| Heart failure | ||||||
| No. of events | 29 | 33 | 63 | 44 | 32 | |
| HR (non-adjust) | 1 | 0.66 (0.40, 1.09) | 1.29 (0.83, 2.00) | 1.33 (0.83, 2.13) | 1.20 (0.72, 1.98) | 0.03 |
| HR (adjusted Model 1) | 1 | 0.64 (0.39, 1.06) | 1.17 (0.74, 1.83) | 1.10 (0.67, 1.79) | 0.89 (0.52, 1.52) | 0.46 |
| HR (adjusted Model 2) | 1 | 0.65 (0.39, 1.08) | 1.19 (0.76, 1.88) | 1.09 (0.66, 1.81) | 0.89 (0.51, 1.53) | 0.49 |
| All-cause mortality | ||||||
| No. of events | 135 | 249 | 293 | 187 | 164 | |
| HR (non-adjust) | 1 | 1.13 (0.92, 1.40) | 1.35 (1.10, 1.66) | 1.25 (1.00, 1.56) | 1.44 (1.14, 1.80) | 0.001 |
| HR (adjusted Model 1) | 1 | 1.08 (0.87, 1.33) | 1.21 (0.98, 1.49) | 1.03 (0.82, 1.30) | 1.11 (0.87, 1.42) | 0.58 |
| HR (adjusted Model 2) | 1 | 1.08 (0.87, 1.34) | 1.20 (0.98, 1.49) | 1.02 (0.81, 1.29) | 1.08 (0.84, 1.38) | 0.80 |
aValues are hazard ratios (95% CIs) derived by Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for age (continuous), BMI (continuous), total energy intake (continuous), alcohol consumption (quartiles), smoking (never, past or current), energy expenditure (quartiles), social class (manual or non-manual), family history of myocardial infarction (yes or no), diabetes mellitus (yes or no)
bAdjusted as model 1 plus sugar intake (< 50, 50–100, > 100 g/day), fruit consumption (< 7, 8–14, 15–21, or > 21 times/week), red meat consumption (< 7, 8–14, 15–21, or > 21 times/week) and fibre (cereal and vegetable sources) (< 10, 10–20, or > 20 g/day)
Longitudinal analysis of incident of stroke according to egg consumption in subjects with and without type 2 diabetes and/or impaired glucose tolerance from the Caerphilly Prospective Cohort study
| Egg consumption (n, eggs/week) |
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (0 ≤ | (1 < | (2 < | (3 < | ( | ||
| Subjects without T2D and/or IGTa | ||||||
| Total subjects, | 221 | 397 | 378 | 248 | 197 | |
| No. of events | 25 | 47 | 45 | 34 | 31 | |
| HR (non-adjust) | 1 | 1.05 (0.64, 1.70) | 1.05 (0.65, 1.72) | 1.23 (0.73, 2.05) | 1.45 (0.85, 2.45) | 0.12 |
| HR (adjusted Model 1)b | 1 | 1.01 (0.62, 1.66) | 0.97 (0.59, 1.60) | 1.14 (0.67, 1.95) | 1.28 (0.73, 2.24) | 0.33 |
| HR (adjusted Model 2)c | 1 | 1.05 (0.64, 1.71) | 1.01 (0.61, 1.66) | 1.17 (0.68, 2.02) | 1.32 (0.75, 2.34) | 0.29 |
| Subjects with T2D and/or IGT | ||||||
| Total Subjects, n | 53 | 67 | 91 | 70 | 59 | |
| No. of events | 8 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 22 | |
| HR (non-adjust) | 1 | 0.96 (0.38, 2.44) | 0.86 (0.35, 2.10) | 1.35 (0.57, 3.23) | 2.71 (1.21, 6.09) | 0.003 |
| HR (adjusted Model 1) | 1 | 1.10 (0.42, 2.86) | 1.02 (0.40, 2.62) | 1.35 (0.53, 3.43) | 2.83 (1.15, 6.96) | 0.01 |
| HR (adjusted Model 2) | 1 | 1.09 (0.41, 2.88) | 0.96 (0.37, 2.50) | 1.39 (0.54, 3.56) | 2.87 (1.13, 7.27) | 0.01 |
aImpaired glucose tolerance, i.e., fasting glucose ≥ 6.1 mmol/L
bValues are hazard ratios (95% CIs) derived by Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for age (continuous), BMI (continuous), total energy intake (continuous), alcohol consumption (quartiles), smoking (never, past or current), energy expenditure (quartiles), social class (manual or non-manual), family history of myocardial infarction (yes or no)
cAdjusted as model 1 plus sugar intake (< 50, 50–100, > 100 g/day), fruit consumption (< 7, 8–14, 15–21, or > 21 times/week), red meat consumption (< 7, 8–14, 15–21, or > 21 times/week) and fibre (cereal and vegetable sources) (< 10, 10–20, or > 20 g/day)
Longitudinal study of incidence of type 2 diabetes according to egg consumption from the caerphilly prospective cohort study
| Egg consumption ( |
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (0 ≤ | (1 < | (2 < | (3 < | ( | ||
| Total subjects, | 259 | 447 | 453 | 290 | 238 | |
| No. of events | 17 | 31 | 35 | 21 | 16 | |
| HR (non-adjust) | 1 | 1.17 (0.65, 2.12) | 1.24 (0.69, 2.21) | 1.20 (0.63, 2.27) | 1.22 (0.61, 2.41) | 0.59 |
| HR (adjusted Model 1)a | 1 | 1.08 (0.59, 1.97) | 1.05 (0.57, 1.92) | 1.25 (0.64, 2.44) | 1.23 (0.60, 2.53) | 0.48 |
| HR (adjusted Model 2)b | 1 | 1.05 (0.57, 1.93) | 1.02 (0.55, 1.88) | 1.24 (0.63, 2.45) | 1.31 (0.63, 2.73) | 0.39 |
aValues are hazard ratios (95% CIs) derived by Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for age (continuous), BMI (continuous), total energy intake (continuous), alcohol consumption (quartiles), smoking (never, past or current), energy expenditure (quartiles), social class (manual or non-manual), family history of myocardial infarction (yes or no)
bAdjusted as model 1 plus sugar intake (< 50, 50–100, > 100 g/d), fruit consumption (< 7, 8–14, 15–21, or > 21 times/week), red meat consumption (< 7, 8–14, 15–21, or > 21 times/week) and fibre (cereal and vegetable sources) (< 10, 10–20, or > 20 g/day)