Skip to main content

Table 2 Associations between intake of ultra-processed food and cardiovascular disease (n = 26,369)a

From: Associations of ultra-processed food consumption, circulating protein biomarkers, and risk of cardiovascular disease

 

Quartiles of sex-specific ultra-processed food consumptionb

P trend

Per SD increasec

P value

1st quartile

2nd quartile

3rd quartile

4th quartile

Number

6,593

6,592

6,591

6,593

   

Median ultra-processed food (g/day)

199.7

293.8

397.9

620.5

   

CVD

 Cases

1,546

1,553

1,512

1,625

   

 Person-years

136,479

138,352

139,752

136,539

   

 Mode1 1d

1 (reference)

0.98 (0.91, 1.05)

0.95 (0.89, 1.02)

1.09 (1.02, 1.17)

0.03

1.05 (1.02, 1.08)

0.0002

 Mode1 2e

1 (reference)

1.03 (0.95, 1.11)

1.02 (0.94, 1.11)

1.20 (1.10, 1.32)

 < 0.01

1.08 (1.05, 1.11)

 < 0.001

 Mode1 3f

1 (reference)

1.03 (0.95, 1.11)

1.02 (0.94, 1.10)

1.18 (1.08, 1.29)

 < 0.01

1.07 (1.04, 1.11)

 < 0.001

CHD

 Cases

898

884

859

925

   

 Person-years

141,192

142,945

144,431

141,664

   

 Mode1 1

1 (reference)

0.96 (0.87, 1.05)

0.93 (0.85, 1.02)

1.06 (0.97, 1.16)

0.32

1.04 (1.00, 1.07)

0.04

 Mode1 2

1 (reference)

1.04 (0.94, 1.14)

1.04 (0.93, 1.16)

1.23 (1.09, 1.39)

 < 0.01

1.08 (1.04, 1.12)

 < 0.001

 Mode1 3

1 (reference)

1.04 (0.94, 1.14)

1.03 (0.92, 1.15)

1.20 (1.07, 1.35)

 < 0.01

1.07 (1.03, 1.11)

 < 0.001

Ischemic stroke

 Cases

794

823

792

863

   

 Person-years

141,124

143,235

144,436

141,635

   

 Mode1 1

1 (reference)

1.00 (0.91, 1.11)

0.97 (0.88, 1.07)

1.12 (1.02, 1.24)

0.04

1.06 (1.03, 1.10)

 < 0.001

 Mode1 2

1 (reference)

1.03 (0.93, 1.14)

1.00 (0.89, 1.12)

1.18 (1.04, 1.33)

0.02

1.09 (1.04, 1.13)

 < 0.001

 Mode1 3

1 (reference)

1.03 (0.93, 1.14)

1.00 (0.89, 1.12)

1.17 (1.03, 1.32)

0.03

1.08 (1.04, 1.13)

 < 0.001

  1. aObtained by using multivariable Cox regression model
  2. bHazard ratios (95% confidence interval) (all such values)
  3. c1 standard deviation (SD) equal to 211 g/day of UPF intake
  4. dModel 1 was adjusted for age and sex
  5. eModel 2 was additionally adjusted for education, smoking status, alcohol consumption, physical activity, season, method, HBP, heredity score, total energy intake, and diet quality index
  6. fModel 3 was adjusted for the same variables as in model 2 and further for BMI