Evidence Hub

Non-linear associations of atherogenic index of plasma with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus among Chinese adults aged 45 years and above: a cross-sectional study from CHARLS

Luqing Jiang, Lei Li, Zichen Xu, Yu Tang, Ying Zhai, Xia Fu, Daoqin Liu, Qi-Wen Wu

Frontiers in Endocrinology, 2024

12,060 participants · 45 citations

Abstract

Background Dyslipidemia is strongly associated with the development of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The atherogenic index of plasma (AIP), as a comprehensive index for assessing lipid metabolism, has received extensive attention from researchers in recent years. However, there are relatively few studies exploring the relationships between AIP and the risk of prediabetes and T2DM in the Chinese population. This study focuses on exploring the relationships of AIP with the risk of prediabetes and T2DM in the Chinese population. Methods We conducted an analysis of the public data from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS), involving a total of 12,060 participants aged 45 years and above in China. The study explored the relationships of AIP with prediabetes and T2DM risk through multivariate logistic regression, subgroup analysis, smooth curve fitting, and threshold effect analysis. Results After adjusting for potential confounding factors, we observed positive associations between AIP and the risk of prediabetes [odds ratio (OR) = 1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.49–2.06] and T2DM (OR = 2.91, 95% CI: 2.38–3.57). Participants with higher AIP levels demonstrated a significantly elevated risk of prediabetes (OR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.33–1.74) and T2DM (OR = 2.28, 95% CI: 1.92–2.71) compared to those with lower AIP levels. AIP showed consistent correlations with prediabetes and T2DM risk in different subgroups. The results showed the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 12,060 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