Evidence Hub

Insulin resistance assessed by estimated glucose disposal rate and risk of incident cardiovascular diseases among individuals without diabetes: findings from a nationwide, population based, prospective cohort study

Zenglei Zhang, Lin Zhao, Yi-ting Lu, Yan Xiao, Xian-Liang Zhou

Cardiovascular Diabetology, 2024

5,512 participants · 188 citations

Abstract

Recent studies have suggested that insulin resistance (IR) contributes to the development of cardiovascular diseases (CVD), and the estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR) is considered to be a reliable surrogate marker of IR. However, most existing evidence stems from studies involving diabetic patients, potentially overstating the effects of eGDR on CVD. Therefore, the primary objective of this study is to examine the relationship of eGDR with incidence of CVD in non-diabetic participants. The current analysis included individuals from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) who were free of CVD and diabetes mellitus but had complete data on eGDR at baseline. The formula for calculating eGDR was as follows: eGDR (mg/kg/min) = 21.158 − (0.09 × WC) − (3.407 × hypertension) − (0.551 × HbA1c) [WC (cm), hypertension (yes = 1/no = 0), and HbA1c (%)]. The individuals were categorized into four subgroups according to the quartiles (Q) of eGDR. Crude incidence rate and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed to investigate the association between eGDR and incident CVD, with the lowest quartile of eGDR (indicating the highest grade of insulin resistance) serving as the reference. Additionally, the multivariate adjusted restricted cubic spine (RCS) was employed to examine the dose–response relationship. We included 5512 participants in this study, with a mean age of 58.2 ± 8.8 years, and 54.1% were female. Over a median follow-up…

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: 5,512 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