Evidence Hub

Associations of cumulative exposure and dynamic trajectories of the C-reactive protein-triglyceride-glucose index with incident cardiovascular disease in middle-aged and older Chinese adults: a nationwide cohort study

Xiu-Juan Ma, Xiao-Dong Ma, Yulong Wang, Gang Qiu, Chun-Juan Zhang

Cardiovascular Diabetology, 2025

4,157 participants · 74 citations

Abstract

This study aimed to explore the relationships between cumulative C-reactive protein-triglyceride-glucose index (cuCTI) and CTI changes and the risk of new-onset cardiovascular disease (CVD) in middle-aged and older Chinese individuals. This longitudinal study employed data from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study. To evaluate the association between the cuCTI index and CVD risk, we conducted Cox regression analyses alongside restricted cubic spline (RCS) regression models. The participants were categorized into three groups on the basis of the dynamic changes in the CTI through K-means clustering. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed to confirm the robustness of the results. A total of 4157 participants were included in the study, of whom 609 (13.5%) were diagnosed with CVD. The incidence risk of CVD increased with increasing cuCTI. In fully adjusted Model 3, the Cox regression results indicated that, compared with those in Q1, participants in Q2 had a significantly greater risk of developing CVD (HR, 1.53 [1.22, 1.92], Padj 0.05). This study revealed that cuCTI and changes in CTI are independently associated with the risk of CVD among middle-aged and elderly individuals with elevated cuCTI levels, particularly those with sustained high CTI levels, exhibited a significantly higher risk of CVD. As a cost-effective and accessible tool, cuCTI may provide supplementary information for assessing CVD risk. Monitoring long-term changes in the CTI…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 4,157 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free