| Literature DB >> 33186340 |
Yue-Xi Zhou1, Fang-Fang Zhu1, Chi Chen2, Ying-Xuan Zhang1, Xiao-Li Lv1, Jing-Wei Li1, Song-Ping Luo3, Jie Gao3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Studies have shown that thiamine intake is associated with cervical cancer, but the relationship between thiamine and HPV infection remains unclear. In the present study, we used the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) database to investigate whether HPV infection was associated with thiamine intake. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 13 471 women ages 18-59 years were selected from the NHANES database from 2003 to 2016. Using thiamine intake as the independent variable, HPV infection as the dependent variable, and sociodemographic data and other data as the covariates, we analyzed the relationship between thiamine and HPV infection by conducting a weighted logistic regression model in a cross-sectional research design. RESULTS The two-piecewise linear model indicated the inflection point of thiamine intake was 2.07 mg. On the left side of the inflection point, the difference in the thiamine intake of log2 conversion was related to the difference of 0.82 in HPV infection, which means that the increase of every 1 unit increase in thiamine intake is associated with the decrease of the HPV infection by 18%. On the right side of the inflection point, we did not observe a correlation between HPV infection and thiamine intake. CONCLUSIONS Thiamine intake is negatively correlated with HPV infection. Intake of an appropriate amount of thiamine can prevent HPV infection. The best preventive effect can be achieved when the intake is about 2 mg, and excessive intake will not increase the preventive effect.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33186340 PMCID: PMC7670832 DOI: 10.12659/MSM.924932
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Figure 1Flowchart of the study. This study selected 13 471 participants after excluding those with missing samples.
Baseline characteristics of participants.
| Thiamine intake (log2 transform) | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 3828 | 3581 | 3385 | 2677 | |
| Age | 37.27±12.65 | 37.31±12.41 | 37.26±12.02 | 35.19±12.04 | <0.001 |
| BMI | 29.31±7.67 | 29.09±7.60 | 29.13±7.66 | 28.99±8.01 | 0.407 |
| Frequency of drinking in the past 12 months | 3.27±12.89 | 3.17±7.94 | 3.40±11.84 | 3.14±9.83 | 0.847 |
| Number of sexual partners in the past year | 1.45±3.02 | 1.20±1.49 | 1.53±5.16 | 1.28±1.87 | 0.019 |
| Age of first sexual activity | 17.22±3.41 | 17.54±3.75 | 17.75±3.73 | 17.57±3.78 | <0.001 |
| Race/ethnicity | <0.001 | ||||
| Mexican American | 687 (17.95%) | 652 (18.21%) | 664 (19.62%) | 567 (21.18%) | |
| Other Hispanic | 346 (9.04%) | 328 (9.16%) | 327 (9.66%) | 205 (7.66%) | |
| Non-Hispanic White | 1427 (37.28%) | 1494 (41.72%) | 1386 (40.95%) | 1114 (41.61%) | |
| Non-Hispanic Black | 1069 (27.93%) | 807 (22.54%) | 685 (20.24%) | 551 (20.58%) | |
| Other race/ethnicity | 299 (7.81%) | 300 (8.38%) | 323 (9.54%) | 240 (8.97%) | |
| Education | <0.001 | ||||
| Less than 9th grade | 289 (8.44%) | 224 (6.91%) | 194 (6.25%) | 174 (7.33%) | |
| Grades 9–11 | 519 (15.16%) | 458 (14.12%) | 385 (12.41%) | 312 (13.14%) | |
| High school graduation | 819 (23.93%) | 653 (20.13%) | 649 (20.92%) | 460 (19.38%) | |
| College | 1154 (33.71%) | 1128 (34.77%) | 991 (31.94%) | 782 (32.94%) | |
| More than college | 642 (18.76%) | 781 (24.08%) | 884 (28.49%) | 646 (27.21%) | |
| Marital status | <0.001 | ||||
| Married or living with partner | 1877 (51.58%) | 1966 (57.42%) | 1952 (60.02%) | 1520 (59.44%) | |
| Widowed, divorced or separated | 1762 (48.42%) | 1458 (42.58%) | 1300 (39.98%) | 1037 (40.56%) | |
| Smoking over 100 | <0.001 | ||||
| No | 2089 (59.72%) | 2131 (64.36%) | 2093 (66.07%) | 1587 (65.47%) | |
| Yes | 1409 (40.28%) | 1180 (35.64%) | 1075 (33.93%) | 837 (34.53%) | |
| Vaginal or anal intercourse times | <0.001 | ||||
| 0 | 33 (1.53%) | 25 (1.22%) | 15 (0.76%) | 19 (1.31%) | |
| 1–11 | 188 (8.74%) | 119 (5.83%) | 146 (7.38%) | 102 (7.02%) | |
| 12–51 | 544 (25.30%) | 462 (22.64%) | 445 (22.49%) | 314 (21.64%) | |
| 52–103 | 681 (31.67%) | 717 (35.13%) | 703 (35.52%) | 497 (34.25%) | |
| 104–364 | 418 (19.44%) | 418 (20.48%) | 429 (21.68%) | 297 (20.47%) | |
| ≥365 | 286 (13.30%) | 300 (14.70%) | 241 (12.18%) | 222 (15.30%) | |
| Used contraceptives | 0.003 | ||||
| No | 1097 (30.73%) | 921 (27.35%) | 867 (27.45%) | 747 (29.94%) | |
| Yes | 2473 (69.27%) | 2446 (72.65%) | 2292 (72.55%) | 1748 (70.06%) | |
| Used sex hormones | 0.022 | ||||
| No | 2782 (87.65%) | 2713 (89.18%) | 2551 (88.45%) | 1989 (90.25%) | |
| Yes | 392 (12.35%) | 6329 (10.82%) | 333 (11.55%) | 215 (9.75%) | |
| HPV infection | <0.001 | ||||
| No | 1936 (50.57%) | 2047 (57.16%) | 2034 (60.09%) | 1590 (59.39%) | |
| Yes | 1892 (49.43%) | 1534 (42.84%) | 1351 (39.91%) | 1087 (40.61%) |
Mean±SD for continuous variables: P value was calculated by weighted linear regression model. % for Categorical variables: P value was calculated by weighted chi-square test.
The linear and nonlinear relationship between thiamine intake and HPV infection assessed by weighted univariate and multivariate logistic regression models.
| Exposure | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | GAM model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HN | n=13471 | n=12089 | n=4170 | n=4170 |
| thiamine intake (mg) (log2 transform) | 0.83 (0.79, 0.86) | 0.87 (0.83, 0.91) | 0.87 (0.80, 0.95) | 0.87 (0.80, 0.95) |
| Thiamine intake (mg) (log2 transform) (quartile) | ||||
| Q1 | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Q2 | 0.77 (0.70, 0.84) | 0.83 (0.75, 0.91) | 0.83 (0.69, 0.99) | 0.83 (0.70, 0.99) |
| Q3 | 0.68 (0.62, 0.75) | 0.76 (0.68, 0.84) | 0.73 (0.61, 0.87) | 0.74 (0.62, 0.88) |
| Q4 | 0.70 (0.63, 0.77) | 0.77 (0.69, 0.86) | 0.75 (0.62, 0.92) | 0.75 (0.62, 0.92) |
| P for trend | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.0007 | 0.0009 |
Model 1 – no covariates were adjusted; Model 2 – only sociodemographic variables were adjusted (body mass index, age, education, marital status, and ethnicity); Model 3 – all covariates presented in Table 1 were adjusted; GAM Model – all continuous variables in the covariates were adjusted as smooth.
Nonlinear relationship detecting by weighted two-piecewise linear model.
| HPV infection | |
|---|---|
| Model I | |
| Regression coefficients | 0.87 (0.80, 0.95) |
| Model II | |
| Inflection point of thiamine intake (log2 transform) | 1.05 |
| Regression coefficients (≤inflection point) | 0.82 (0.74, 0.90) |
| Regression coefficients (>inflection point) | 1.40 (0.93, 2.10) |
| Regression coefficient difference | 1.71 (1.09, 2.68) |
| predicted value of thiamine intake (Y) at inflection point | −0.37 (−0.48, −0.27) |
| P for log likelihood ratio test | 0.019 |
Figure 2Correlation between the risk of HPV infection and thiamine intake. The inflection point of thiamine intake was 2.07 mg. On the left side of the inflection point (thiamine intake ≤2.07 mg), the difference in thiamine intake of log2 transform is related to the 0.82 difference in HPV infection. On the right side of the inflection point, we did not observe a correlation between HPV infection and thiamine intake (β=1.40, 95% CI: 0.93, 2.10).
Association of thiamine intake with different types of HPV infection.
| Exposure | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | GAM model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High-risk HPV infection | n=10565 | n=9410 | n=3187 | n=3187 |
| Thiamine intake (mg) (log2 transform) | 0.83 (0.79, 0.88) | 0.89 (0.84, 0.94) | 0.91 (0.82, 1.01) | 0.92 (0.83, 1.03) |
| Low-risk HPV infection | n=10495 | n=9537 | n=3174 | n=3174 |
| Thiamine intake(mg) (log2 transform) | 0.82 (0.78, 0.86) | 0.86 (0.81, 0.91) | 0.84 (0.76, 0.93) | 0.85 (0.76, 0.94) |
Model 1 – no covariates were adjusted; Model 2 – only sociodemographic variables were adjusted (body mass index, age, education, marital status, and ethnicity); Model 3 – all covariates presented in Table 1 were adjusted; GAM Model – all continuous variables in the covariates were adjusted as smooth.