| Literature DB >> 34316387 |
WenHui Fu1,2, Hualian Pei1, Nitin Shivappa3,4, James R Hebert3,4, Tao Luo1, Tian Tian1, Dilibaier Alimu1, Zewen Zhang1, Jianghong Dai1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diet and inflammation have both been studied in relation to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The aim of this cross-sectional study was to examine the association between the Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII®) and T2DM.Entities:
Keywords: China; Dietary Inflammatory Index; Type 2 diabetes mellitus
Year: 2021 PMID: 34316387 PMCID: PMC8288110 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.11159
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Flow diagram of subjects included in the study.
Characteristics of the study population.
| Overall study | Non-T2DM subjects | T2DM subjects | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | ||
| Sex, | ||||
| Male | 2998(58.7) | 2769(59.1) | 229(54.7) | 0.08 |
| Female | 2107(41.3) | 1917(40.9) | 190(45.4) | |
| Age groups, | <0.001 | |||
| <45 | 1662(32.6) | 1605(34.3) | 57(13.6) | |
| 45–60 | 2323(45.5) | 2132(45.5) | 191(45.6) | |
| >60 | 1120(22.0) | 949(20.3) | 171(40.8) | |
| Weight status, | 0.60 | |||
| BMI<24 kg/m2 | 1584(31.0) | 1462(31.2) | 122(29.1) | |
| BMI 24–28 kg/m2 | 1837(36.0) | 1678(35.8) | 164(37.9) | |
| BMI>28 kg/m2 | 1684(33.0) | 1546(33.0) | 138(32.9) | |
| Ethnicity, | ||||
| Han | 665(13.0) | 590(12.6) | 75(17.9) | <0.001 |
| Kazak | 919(18.0) | 879(18.8) | 40(9.6) | |
| Hui | 1302(25.5) | 1153(24.6) | 149(35.6) | |
| Uyghur | 746(14.6) | 661(14.1) | 85(20.3) | |
| Others | 1473(28.9) | 1403(29.9) | 70(16.7) | |
| Educational level, | ||||
| Low | 3695(73.1) | 3378(72.8) | 317(73.1) | 0.34 |
| Medium | 1337(26.4) | 1237(26.7) | 100(23.9) | |
| High | 25(0.5) | 24(0.5) | 1(0.2) | |
| Smoking status, | ||||
| Never | 3980(78.0) | 3643(77.7) | 337(80.4) | 0.21 |
| Once in a while | 106(2.1) | 95(2.0) | 11(2.6) | |
| Usually | 1019(20.0) | 948(20.0) | 71(17.0) | |
| Alcohol status, | ||||
| Never | 4300(84.2) | 3933(83.9) | 367(87.5) | 0.05 |
| Once in a while | 686(13.4) | 645(13.8) | 41(9.8) | |
| Usually | 119(2.3) | 108(2.3) | 11(2.6) | |
| Physical activity level, | ||||
| Low | 2862(56.1) | 2571(54.9) | 291(69.5) | <0.001 |
| Medium | 2106(41.3) | 1983(42.3) | 123(29.4) | |
| High | 137(2.7) | 132(2.8) | 5(1.2) | |
| Glucose (mmol/L) | 5.12(0.02) | 4.85(0.01) | 8.10(0.2) | <0.001 |
| DII | 0.81(0.1) | 0.76(0.1) | 1.44(0.2) | <0.001 |
Baseline characteristics of study population by Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII) categorization.
| DII quintiles | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1:most anti-inflammatory | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5:most pro-inflammatory | ||
| Median (range) | −5.3 (≤−3.0) | −1.3 (−2.9–0.04) | 1.3 (0.05–2.4) | 3.6 (2.5–4.4) | 5.8 ≥4.5 | <0.001 |
| Sex, | 0.19 | |||||
| Men | 618(61.4) | 574(56.7) | 590(59.2) | 573(57.0) | 643(59.2) | |
| Women | 388(38.6) | 438(43.3) | 406(40.8) | 432(43.0) | 443(40.8) | |
| Age groups, | 0.004 | |||||
| <45 | 368(36.6) | 321(31.7) | 322(32.3) | 327(32.5) | 324(29.8) | |
| 45–60 | 452(44.9) | 483(47.7) | 448(45.0) | 457(45.5) | 483(44.5) | |
| >60 | 186(18.5) | 208(20.6) | 226(22.7) | 221(22.0) | 279(25.7) | |
| Weight status, | 0.03 | |||||
| BMI<24 | 290(28.8) | 308(30.4) | 310(31.1) | 331(32.9) | 345(31.8) | |
| BMI 24–28 | 386(38.4) | 369(36.5) | 358(35.9) | 377(37.5) | 347(32.0) | |
| BMI>28 | 330(32.8) | 335(33.1) | 328(32.9) | 297(29.6) | 394(36.3) | |
| Ethnicity, | <0.001 | |||||
| Han | 166(16.5) | 162(16.0) | 131(13.2) | 116(11.5) | 90(8.30) | |
| Kazak | 127(12.6) | 182(18.0) | 177 (17.8) | 163(16.2) | 270(24.9) | |
| Hui | 304(30.2) | 244(24.1) | 262(26.3) | 249(24.8) | 243 (22.4) | |
| Uyghurs | 127(12.6) | 132(13.0) | 141(14.2) | 179(17.8) | 167(15.4) | |
| Others | 282(28.0) | 292(28.9) | 285(28.6) | 298(29.7) | 316(29.1) | |
| Educational level, | <0.001 | |||||
| Low | 672(67.7) | 718(71.4) | 722(73.1) | 759(76.1) | 824(76.8) | |
| Medium | 316(31.8) | 283(28.1) | 259(26.2) | 235(23.6) | 244(22.7) | |
| High | 5(0.5) | 5(0.5) | 7(0.7) | 3(0.3) | 5(0.5) | |
| Smoking status, | 0.47 | |||||
| Never | 722 (76.7) | 801(79.2) | 779(78.2) | 795(79.1) | 833 (76.7) | |
| Once in a while | 27(2.7) | 18(1.8) | 22(2.2) | 22(2.2) | 17(1.6) | |
| Usually | 207(20.6) | 193(19.1) | 195(19.6) | 188(18.7) | 236 (21.7) | |
| Alcohol status, | 0.20 | |||||
| Never | 826(82.1) | 849(83.9) | 842(84.5) | 864(86.0) | 919 (84.7) | |
| Once in a while | 149(14.8) | 136(13.4) | 136(13.7) | 122(12.1) | 143(13.2) | |
| Usually | 31(3.1) | 27(2.7) | 18(1.8) | 19(1.9) | 24(2.2) | |
| Physical activity level, | 0.002 | |||||
| Low | 538(53.5) | 566(55.9) | 534(53.6) | 573(57.0) | 651(59.9) | |
| Medium | 435(43.2) | 421(41.6) | 447(44.9) | 396(39.4) | 407(37.5) | |
| High | 33(3.3) | 25(2.5) | 15(1.5) | 36(3.6) | 28(2.6) | |
| Glucose (mmol/L), mean (SD) | 4.98(1.0) | 5.03(1.1) | 4.99(1.0) | 5.00(1.0) | 5.57(3.0) | <0.001 |
Results of multivariate logistic regression models examining the relation between the Dietary Inflammatory Index and T2DM.
| No. T2DM (%) | Unadjusted | Sex- and ethnicity- adjusted | Fully adjusted | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR(95% CI) | OR(95% CI) | OR(95% CI) | |||||
| DII as continuous variable per 1-piont increase | 419 | 1.05(1.02,1.08) | 0.001 | 1.06(1.03,1.08) | <0.001 | 1.05(1.02,1.08) | <0.001 |
| DII as categorical variable | |||||||
| Q1 | 60 | 1(reference) | 1(reference) | 1(reference) | |||
| Q2 | 63 | 1.05(0.73,1.51) | 0.81 | 1.12(0.77,1.62) | 0.55 | 1.12(0.77,1.62) | 0.55 |
| Q3 | 65 | 1.10(0.77,1.58) | 0.60 | 1.17(0.82,1.69) | 0.39 | 1.14(0.79,1.65) | 0.48 |
| Q4 | 66 | 1.11(0.77,1.59) | 0.58 | 1.18(0.82,1.70) | 0.37 | 1.15(0.80,1.66) | 0.46 |
| Q5 | 165 | 2.83(2.07,3.85) | <0.001 | 3.37(2.46,4.63) | <0.001 | 3.27(2.38,4.50) | <0.001 |
Figure 2Odds ratio (95% CI) of Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII) and T2DM.
Figure 3Stratified analysis of the association between DII and T2DM after adjusting for potential confounding factors (Quartile 5 vs. Quartile 1).