Evidence Hub

Association of atherogenic index of plasma trajectory with the incidence of cardiovascular disease over a 12-year follow-up: findings from the ELSA cohort study

Xicong Li, Li-Fei Lu, Yubiao Chen, Bai-Yun Liu, Bei Liu, He-Shen Tian, Huajing Yang, R. Guo

Cardiovascular Diabetology, 2025

3,976 participants · 27 citations

Abstract

Atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) at baseline has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, the relationship between long-term AIP trajectories and CVD remains unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the associations between AIP trajectories and the incidence of CVD in the English population. The study data analysis was based on the English Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSA) from 2004 to 2017. The study population consisted of individuals aged 50 years and older in England. AIP was calculated as log10 (triglycerides/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol). Group-based trajectory model (GBTM) was applied to identify the trajectory of the AIP index from Wave 2 to 8 over a 12-year follow-up. Cox proportional hazard models were then used to analyze the associations between different AIP index trajectory groups and the incidence of CVD. A total of 3976 participants with completed AIP data in Wave 2 and more than two AIP measurements between Wave 2 and Wave 8 were enrolled in the ELSA cohort. The participants were divided into three groups [low-stable group (n = 1146), moderate-stable group (n = 2110), high-stable group (n = 720)] using a GBTM model. After adjusting for potential confounders, participants in the high-stable group indicated an increased risk of developing incident of CVD compared to those in the low-stable AIP group [Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.33; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.02–1.74, P = 0.033].…

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: 3,976 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