| Literature DB >> 35983006 |
Tingting Qiao1,2, Hui Zhao1, Tao Luo1, Duolao Wang3, Kaili Mu1, Aliya Aimudula1, Hualian Pei1, Guozhen Zhang1, Jianghong Dai1.
Abstract
Background: There are few reports on the relationship between dietary patterns and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study aimed to explore relationships between dietary patterns and CVD risk in the T2D population using multiple statistical analysis methods.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35983006 PMCID: PMC9381206 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2802828
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.650
Figure 1The flow chart illustrates the number of participants included in the analysis in the Xinjiang Multi-Ethnic Cohort study.
Characteristics of the participants with T2D by CVD status.
| Total ( | CVD ( | Non-CVD ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | ||||
| Mean ± SD | 61.77 ± 9.53 | 63.55 ± 8.38 | 61.36 ± 9.73 | <0.001 |
| Sex (%) | ||||
| Male | 1251 (41.9) | 212 (38.2) | 1039 (42.8) | 0.049 |
| Female | 1733 (58.1) | 343 (61.8) | 1390 (57.2) | |
| Region (%) | ||||
| Urumqi | 1857 (62.2) | 308 (55.5) | 1549 (63.8) | <0.001 |
| Huo Cheng | 438 (14.7) | 78 (14.1) | 360 (14.8) | |
| Mo Yu | 689 (23.1) | 169 (30.4) | 520 (21.4) | |
| Race (%) | ||||
| Han | 1731 (58.0) | 268 (48.3) | 1463 (60.2) | <0.001 |
| Hui | 292 (9.8) | 58 (10.5) | 234 (9.7) | |
| Uyghur | 886 (29.7) | 222 (40.0) | 664 (27.3) | |
| Kazakh | 51 (1.7) | 4 (0.7) | 47 (1.9) | |
| Other | 24 (0.8) | 3 (0.5) | 21 (0.9) | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | ||||
| Mean ± SD | 26.30 ± 3.95 | 26.74 ± 4.29 | 26.20 ± 3.87 | 0.007 |
| Waist circumference (cm) | ||||
| Mean ± SD | 92.91 ± 10.98 | 95.44 ± 11.24 | 92.33 ± 10.84 | <0.001 |
| Education (%) | ||||
| Primary school or below | 1658 (55.6) | 348 (62.7) | 1310 (54.0) | <0.001 |
| Middle school | 813 (27.2) | 138 (25.0) | 675 (27.8) | |
| High school or beyond | 513 (17.2) | 69 (12.4) | 444 (18.3) | |
| Marital status (%) | ||||
| Married | 2531 (84.8) | 452 (81.4) | 2079 (85.6) | 0.014 |
| Widowed/Divorced | 453 (15.2) | 103 (18.6) | 350 (14.4) | |
| Physical activity (%) | ||||
| Low | 2116 (70.9) | 434 (78.2) | 1682 (69.2) | <0.001 |
| Moderate | 804 (26.9) | 115 (20.7) | 689 (28.4) | |
| High | 64 (2.1) | 6 (1.1) | 58 (2.4) | |
| Current smoker (%) | ||||
| Yes | 444 (14.9) | 78 (14.1) | 366 (15.1) | 0.545 |
| No | 2540 (85.1) | 477 (85.9) | 2063 (84.9) | |
| Family history of CVD (%) | ||||
| Yes | 382 (12.8) | 102 (18.4) | 280 (11.5) | <0.001 |
| No | 2602 (87.2) | 453 (81.6) | 2149 (88.5) | |
| Family history of diabetes (%) | ||||
| Yes | 308 (10.3) | 54 (9.7) | 254 (10.5) | 0.611 |
| No | 2676 (89.7) | 501 (90.3) | 2175 (89.5) | |
| Hypertension (%) | ||||
| Yes | 1784 (59.8) | 417 (75.1) | 1367 (56.3) | <0.001 |
| No | 1200 (40.2) | 138 (24.9) | 1062 (43.7) | |
| TC (mmol/L) | ||||
| Median (interquartile range) | 4.90 (4.11, 5.64) | 4.84 (4.01, 5.86) | 4.90 (4.13, 5.60) | 0.619 |
| TG (mmol/L) | ||||
| Median (interquartile range) | 1.50 (1.07, 2.16) | 1.57 (1.13, 2.35) | 1.50 (1.05, 2.13) | 0.005 |
| HDL-C (mmol/L) | ||||
| Median (interquartile range) | 1.36 (1.13, 1.64) | 1.33 (1.13, 1.60) | 1.36 (1.14, 1.65) | 0.048 |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | ||||
| Median (interquartile range) | 2.65 (2.00, 3.22) | 2.78 (2.13, 3.32) | 2.63 (1.98, 3.20) | 0.001 |
| FPG (mmol/L) | ||||
| Median (interquartile range) | 7.60 (6.42, 9.26) | 7.40 (6.10, 9.68) | 7.62 (6.55, 9.20) | 0.253 |
The P values were derived from the chi-squared test for categorical variables and Student's t-test or the Mann–Whitney U test for continuous variables.
Figure 2Principal component analysis, reduced-rank regression, and partial least-squares regression were used to study the factor load of the food group in the dietary pattern. Food groups with positive impacts on dietary patterns are shown in red, while food groups with negative impacts on dietary patterns are shown in blue.
Response variables explained by dietary patterns obtained by three statistical methods and the proportion of changes in the food group.
| Dietary patterns | Explained variation in food groups (%) | Explained variation in response variables (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Triglycerides | High-density lipoprotein cholesterol | Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol | Total | ||
| PCA-prudent pattern | 12.30 | 0.50 | 4.50 | 2.80 | 0.50 |
| PCA-high-protein and high-carbohydrate patterns | 7.74 | 6.00 | 7.40 | 13.2 | 7.80 |
| RRR-high-protein and high-carbohydrate patterns | 7.64 | 14.05 | 7.98 | 15.22 | 12.42 |
| PLS-high-protein and high-carbohydrate patterns | 8.96 | 11.27 | 8.29 | 15.14 | 11.57 |
Figure 3Correlations between dietary patterns and response variables were derived from the principal component analysis, partial least-squares, and reduced-rank regressions. PCA1, principal component analysis-prudent dietary pattern; PCA2, principal component analysis-high-protein and high-carbohydrate patterns.
Figure 4Associations between dietary pattern scores and the presence of cardiovascular disease in participants with T2D. Values are odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals presented in quartiles of the dietary patterns. The first model was crude, and the second model was adjusted for energy intake, age, sex, region, race, education, current smoking status, marital status, hypertension, physical activity, body mass index, and waist circumference. P trend was calculated by using the quartiles of dietary pattern scores as continuous variables in the models.
Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval, by quartile, of estimated 10-year CVD risk by dietary pattern among participants with T2D.
| Quartile of dietary pattern score ( |
| OR for per 1 SDincrease (95% CI) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | |||
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |||
| PCA-prudent dietary pattern | ||||||
| Model 1 | 1.00 | 0.92 (0.73, 1.16) | 1.04 (0.82, 1.31) | 0.84 (0.67, 1.05) | 0.262 | 0.96 (0.88, 1.04) |
| Model 2 | 1.00 | 0.87 (0.67, 1.12) | 1.00 (0.77, 1.29) | 0.78 (0.60, 1.02) | 0.155 | 0.95 (0.86, 1.04) |
|
| ||||||
| PCA-high-protein and high-carbohydrate patterns | ||||||
| Model 1 | 1.00 | 1.10 (0.88, 1.37) | 1.16 (0.92, 1.45) | 1.34 (1.06, 1.69) | 0.013 | 1.13 (1.04, 1.23) |
| Model 2 | 1.00 | 1.08 (0.84, 1.38) | 1.22 (0.94, 1.57) | 1.30 (1.00, 1.70) | 0.033 | 1.12 (1.02, 1.23) |
|
| ||||||
| RRR-high-protein and high-carbohydrate patterns | ||||||
| Model 1 | 1.00 | 1.14 (0.92, 1.42) | 1.36 (1.08, 1.70) | 1.44 (1.14, 1.81) | 0.001 | 1.13 (1.04, 1.23) |
| Model 2 | 1.00 | 1.27 (0.99, 1.63) | 1.47 (1.13, 1.89) | 1.54 (1.17, 2.01) | 0.001 | 1.14 (1.04, 1.25) |
|
| ||||||
| PLS-high-protein and high-carbohydrate patterns | ||||||
| Model 1 | 1.00 | 1.05 (0.84, 1.31) | 1.24 (0.99, 1.55) | 1.42 (1.12, 1.79) | 0.001 | 1.11 (1.03, 1.21) |
| Model 2 | 1.00 | 1.20 (0.94, 1.54) | 1.41 (1.09, 1.82) | 1.45 (1.11, 1.91) | 0.003 | 1.13 (1.03, 1.23) |
Q, quartile; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; SD, standard deviation. Model 1: logistic regression model without adjustment. Model 2: logistic regression model with adjustment of energy intake, region, race, education, marital status, hypertension, physical activity, and body mass index. P trend was derived by using the quartiles of dietary pattern scores as continuous variables.