Skip to main content

Table 3 Hazard ratios of cardiometabolic diseases by quintiles of the modern dietary pattern among 477,465 participants

From: Dietary patterns and cardiometabolic diseases in 0.5 million Chinese adults: a 10-year cohort study

Endpoints

Modern dietary pattern

P trend

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

CVD

 Cases

30,630

28,772

27,420

26,337

24,556

 

 Incidence density (1/1000 PYs)

25.4

25.1

25.3

25.2

23.8

 

 Model 1

1.00 (Ref.)

0.99 (0.98, 1.01)

0.99 (0.97, 1.01)

0.99 (0.97, 1.01)

0.95 (0.93, 0.97)

< 0.001

 Model 2

1.00 (Ref.)

0.97 (0.96, 0.99)

0.95 (0.93, 0.97)

0.92 (0.89, 0.94)

0.87 (0.84, 0.90)

< 0.001

 Model 3

1.00 (Ref.)

0.98 (0.97, 1.00)

0.96 (0.94, 0.98)

0.93 (0.91, 0.96)

0.89 (0.86, 0.92)

< 0.001

MCE

 Cases

2193

1712

1618

1637

1710

 

 Incidence density (1/1000 PYs)

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.7

 

 Model 1

1.00 (Ref.)

0.92 (0.86, 0.99)

0.92 (0.86, 0.99)

0.90 (0.83, 0.97)

0.81 (0.74, 0.88)

< 0.001

 Model 2

1.00 (Ref.)

0.93 (0.87, 1.00)

0.92 (0.85, 1.00)

0.90 (0.81, 0.99)

0.85 (0.75, 0.96)

0.014

 Model 3

1.00 (Ref.)

0.94 (0.88, 1.01)

0.93 (0.86, 1.01)

0.91 (0.83, 1.00)

0.88 (0.77, 0.99)

0.046

HS

 Cases

2888

2393

1993

1473

1011

 

 Incidence density (1/1000 PYs)

1.5

1.4

1.2

1.1

0.8

 

 Model 1

1.00 (Ref.)

0.93 (0.88, 0.99)

0.88 (0.82, 0.93)

0.78 (0.73, 0.84)

0.61 (0.56, 0.67)

< 0.001

 Model 2

1.00 (Ref.)

0.93 (0.87, 0.98)

0.86 (0.80, 0.93)

0.76 (0.69, 0.84)

0.60 (0.53, 0.69)

< 0.001

 Model 3

1.00 (Ref.)

0.96 (0.90, 1.02)

0.90 (0.84, 0.97)

0.83 (0.75, 0.91)

0.67 (0.59, 0.77)

< 0.001

IS

 Cases

9729

7853

7720

9055

8310

 

 Incidence density (1/1000 PYs)

6.1

6.1

6.0

6.2

5.4

 

 Model 1

1.00 (Ref.)

1.00 (0.97, 1.03)

0.99 (0.96, 1.03)

1.02 (0.98, 1.06)

0.90 (0.87, 0.94)

< 0.001

 Model 2

1.00 (Ref.)

0.97 (0.94, 1.01)

0.94 (0.90, 0.97)

0.93 (0.89, 0.98)

0.82 (0.77, 0.86)

< 0.001

 Model 3

1.00 (Ref.)

0.99 (0.96, 1.02)

0.95 (0.92, 0.99)

0.95 (0.91, 1.00)

0.85 (0.80, 0.89)

< 0.001

Diabetes

 Cases

3014

3737

3931

3625

3105

 

 Incidence density (1/1000 PYs)

2.9

2.8

3.0

3.1

3.2

 

 Model 1

1.00 (Ref.)

0.97 (0.92, 1.02)

1.03 (0.98, 1.08)

1.07 (1.01, 1.13)

1.12 (1.05, 1.20)

< 0.001

 Model 2

1.00 (Ref.)

0.93 (0.88, 0.98)

0.93 (0.87, 0.98)

0.88 (0.82, 0.94)

0.88 (0.80, 0.96)

0.009

 Model 3

1.00 (Ref.)

0.93 (0.88, 0.98)

0.92 (0.87, 0.98)

0.88 (0.82, 0.94)

0.89 (0.81, 0.97)

0.015

  1. Incidence density was adjusted for age at recruitment, sex and survey sites. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using Cox models with stratification on survey sites and age-at-risk (5-year groups). Model 1 was adjusted for sex, age at recruitment, education level. Model 2 was additionally adjusted for smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, the average daily energy intake, spicy food, family history of CVD or diabetes, body mass index, and waist circumference. Model 3 was additionally adjusted for prevalent diabetes, antihypertensive drugs use, and systolic blood pressure. Tests for linear trend were conducted by assigning the median value to each quintile and modelling it as a continuous variable in the Cox model
  2. CVD: cardiovascular disease. MCE: major coronary events. HS: haemorrhagic stroke. IS: ischaemic stroke. PY: person year
  3. * Analyses were performed among 451,846 diabetic participants
Back to article page

Nutrition Journal

ISSN: 1475-2891

Contact us