Kai Lu1, Zuxun Lu2, Pan Ke3, Heng Jiang4,5, Rowan Dowling4, Lirong Zhong6, Li Ke7, Minzhi Xu3, Chao Wang3, Qingfeng Tian8, Yan He8. 1. Tongji Hospital, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. 1317794983@qq.com. 2. Department of Social Medicine and Health Management, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 13 Hangkong Road, Wuhan, 430030, Hubei, China. zuxunlu@yahoo.com. 3. Department of Social Medicine and Health Management, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 13 Hangkong Road, Wuhan, 430030, Hubei, China. 4. Centre for Alcohol Policy Research, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 5. Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 6. School of Public Health, Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan, Hubei, China. 7. Nursing of School, Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan, Hubei, China. 8. School of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Abstract
PURPOSES: Previous studies show inconsistent associations between niacin supplementation and diabetes mellitus (DM) in high-risk population, but little is known about the relationship between dietary intake of niacin and DM in the generation population. Our study aimed to explore the associations of dietary niacin intake with the risk of DM in the United States (US) adult population. METHODS: These data were derived from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003-2018 of 35,606 individuals aged 20 years or older. Niacin intake and food sources were measured by two 24-h dietary recall interviews. The diagnosis of DM was established according to the American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria. Binary logistic regression and restricted cubic spline models were applied to evaluate the association of dietary niacin intake and DM. RESULTS: Among the 35,606 individuals, the prevalence of DM was 11.47%. The full-adjusted odds ratio(aOR) of DM was 1.27(95%CI 1.06-1.52) for quartile (Q) 4 v. Q1 of dietary niacin intake. In the dose-response analysis, the shape of the association of niacin intake with the risk of DM was approximately J-shaped (non-linear, p < 0.05). Energy-adjusted niacin of 26.08 mg/day was the optimal cut-off value for predicting DM. CONCLUSIONS: High dietary niacin intake was positively associated with DM among US adults. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V: Opinions of authorities, based on descriptive studies, narrative reviews, clinical experience, or reports of expert committees.
PURPOSES: Previous studies show inconsistent associations between niacin supplementation and diabetes mellitus (DM) in high-risk population, but little is known about the relationship between dietary intake of niacin and DM in the generation population. Our study aimed to explore the associations of dietary niacin intake with the risk of DM in the United States (US) adult population. METHODS: These data were derived from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003-2018 of 35,606 individuals aged 20 years or older. Niacin intake and food sources were measured by two 24-h dietary recall interviews. The diagnosis of DM was established according to the American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria. Binary logistic regression and restricted cubic spline models were applied to evaluate the association of dietary niacin intake and DM. RESULTS: Among the 35,606 individuals, the prevalence of DM was 11.47%. The full-adjusted odds ratio(aOR) of DM was 1.27(95%CI 1.06-1.52) for quartile (Q) 4 v. Q1 of dietary niacin intake. In the dose-response analysis, the shape of the association of niacin intake with the risk of DM was approximately J-shaped (non-linear, p < 0.05). Energy-adjusted niacin of 26.08 mg/day was the optimal cut-off value for predicting DM. CONCLUSIONS: High dietary niacin intake was positively associated with DM among US adults. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V: Opinions of authorities, based on descriptive studies, narrative reviews, clinical experience, or reports of expert committees.