Evidence Hub

Plasma and Dietary Linoleic Acid and 3-Year Risk of Type 2 Diabetes After Myocardial Infarction: A Prospective Analysis in the Alpha Omega Cohort

K. Pertiwi, A. Wanders, Marjolein C. Harbers, L. K. Küpers, S. Soedamah-Muthu, J. de Goede, P. Zock, J. Geleijnse

Diabetes Care, 2019

3,257 participants · 15 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To study plasma and dietary linoleic acid (LA) in relation to type 2 diabetes risk in post–myocardial infarction (MI) patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We included 3,257 patients aged 60–80 years (80% male) with a median time since MI of 3.5 years from the Alpha Omega Cohort and who were initially free of type 2 diabetes. At baseline (2002–2006), plasma LA was measured in cholesteryl esters, and dietary LA was estimated with a 203-item food-frequency questionnaire. Incident type 2 diabetes was ascertained through self-reported physician diagnosis and medication use. Hazard ratios (with 95% CIs) were calculated by Cox regressions, in which dietary LA isocalorically replaced the sum of saturated (SFA) and trans fatty acids (TFA). RESULTS Mean ± SD circulating and dietary LA was 50.1 ± 4.9% and 5.9 ± 2.1% energy, respectively. Plasma and dietary LA were weakly correlated (Spearman r = 0.13, P < 0.001). During a median follow-up of 41 months, 171 patients developed type 2 diabetes. Plasma LA was inversely associated with type 2 diabetes risk (quintile [Q]5 vs. Q1: 0.44 [0.26, 0.75]; per 5%: 0.73 [0.62, 0.86]). Substitution of dietary LA for SFA+TFA showed no association with type 2 diabetes risk (Q5 vs. Q1: 0.78 [0.36, 1.72]; per 5% energy: 1.18 [0.59, 2.35]). Adjustment for markers of de novo lipogenesis attenuated plasma LA associations. CONCLUSIONS In our cohort of post-MI patients, plasma LA was inversely related to type 2 diabetes risk, whereas dietary LA was…

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: 3,257 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