Evidence Hub

Ultra-processed foods and mortality: analysis from the Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiology study

M. Dehghan, A. Mente, S. Rangarajan, V. Mohan, S. Swaminathan, Á. Avezum, S. Lear, A. Rosengren et al.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2022

138,076 participants · 49 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Higher intake of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) has been associated with increased risk of CVD and mortality in observational studies from Western countries but data from non-Western countries are limited.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the association between consumption of UPFs and risk of mortality and major CVD in a cohort from multiple world regions.

DESIGN

This analysis includes 138,076 participants without a history of CVD between the ages of 35 and 70 y living on 5 continents, with a median follow-up of 10.2 y. We used country-specific validated food-frequency questionnaires to determine individuals' food intake. We classified foods and beverages based on the NOVA classification into UPFs. The primary outcome was total mortality (CV and non-CV mortality) and secondary outcomes were incident major cardiovascular events. We calculated hazard ratios using multivariable Cox frailty models and evaluated the association of UPFs with total mortality, CV mortality, non-CV mortality, and major CVD events.

RESULTS

In this study, 9227 deaths and 7934 major cardiovascular events were recorded during the follow-up period. We found a diet high in UPFs (≥2 servings/d compared with 0 intake) was associated with higher risk of mortality (HR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.15, 1.42; P-trend < 0.001), CV mortality (HR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.41; P-trend = 0.04), and non-CV mortality (HR: 1.32; 95% CI 1.17, 1.50; P-trend < 0.001). We did not find a significant association between UPF intake and…

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: 138,076 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