Different Associations between Lipid Levels and Risk for Heart Failure according to Diabetes Progression

Article information

Diabetes Metab J. 2024;.dmj.2024.0066
Publication date (electronic) : 2024 August 28
doi : https://doi.org/10.4093/dmj.2024.0066
1Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
2Department of Medical Informatics, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
3Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, Soongsil University, Seoul, Korea
4Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, Catholic Research Institute for Intractable Cardiovascular Disease, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
5Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Yeouido St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
Corresponding author: Mee Kyoung Kim https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3205-9114 Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Yeouido St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 10 63-ro, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul 07345, Korea E-mail: makung@catholic.ac.kr
Received 2024 February 10; Accepted 2024 May 13.

Abstract

Background

The relationship between circulating lipid levels and the risk for heart failure (HF) is controversial. We aimed to examine this association, and whether it is modified by the duration of diabetes or treatment regimens in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Methods

Individuals (n=2,439,978) who underwent health examinations in 2015 to 2016 were identified from the Korean National Health Information Database. Subjects were categorized according to the duration of diabetes (new-onset, <5, 5–10, or ≥10 years) and number of antidiabetic medications. Incident HF was defined according to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) code I50 as the primary diagnosis during hospitalization. The risk for HF was estimated using multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis.

Results

During a median follow-up of 4.0 years, 151,624 cases of HF occurred. An inverse association between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and incident HF was observed in the new-onset diabetes group, with an approximately 25% lower risk in those with LDL-C levels of 100–129, 130–159, and ≥160 mg/dL, compared to those with levels <70 mg/dL. However, J-shaped associations were noted in the long-standing diabetes group, with a 16% higher risk in those with LDL-C level ≥160 mg/dL, compared to those with levels <70 mg/dL. Similar patterns were observed in the relationship between total cholesterol or non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and the risk for HF, and when subjects were grouped according to the number of antidiabetic medications instead of diabetes duration.

Conclusion

Different associations between lipid levels and the risk for HF were noted according to disease progression status among individuals with diabetes.

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

Highlights

• In early diabetes or with fewer drugs, higher LDL-C is linked to lower HF risk.

• In long-term diabetes or with multiple drugs or insulin, high lipid levels raise HF risk.

• The impact of dyslipidemia on HF risk changes with diabetes progression.

• Lipid targets should be adjusted based on the progression of diabetes.

INTRODUCTION

Interest in heart failure (HF) has increased significantly due to the robust clinical benefits of newer antidiabetic agents demonstrated in recent, large-scale, cardiovascular outcome trials [1]. Diabetes is associated with a 2- to 4-fold increased risk for HF, and its prevalence, associated hospitalization, and costs of care are increasing, in contrast to the decreasing trend of other cardiovascular diseases such as ischemic heart disease (IHD) or stroke [2-5]. Because patients with HF and diabetes experience worse outcomes than those without diabetes, understanding its pathophysiology and risk factors is important to predict, prevent, or mitigate the impact of this devastating disease [4].

Well-known risk factors for HF include old age, long duration of diabetes, IHD, hypertension, kidney dysfunction, obesity, and smoking [4,6]. Although several epidemiological studies have suggested that dyslipidemia is a risk factor for HF, it has demonstrated an inconsistent association with the development of HF [7-12]. Conflicting results have been reported, depending on the lipid parameters studied, whether the participants had IHD or diabetes, and whether lipid-lowering agents were used. Because a significant number of studies have proposed a “lipid paradox,” with an inverse relationship between circulating lipid levels and HF risk or prognosis in patients with established HF [13-16], it is important to delineate this relationship for the appropriate management and prevention of HF.

In this study, we aimed to investigate the relationship between circulating lipid levels and future HF risk among individuals with diabetes, and whether this association was modified by the duration of diabetes or treatment regimens, using data from nearly 2.5 million individuals in a large-scale, nationwide, population-based, cohort study.

METHODS

Data source

The present study used data from the Korean National Health Information Database (NHID), which combines data from the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) collected for claims and reimbursements of healthcare services and general health examinations. The NHIS is a single insurer managed by the government for the entire South Korean population and provides comprehensive medical coverage. The NHID houses a complete set of health information, which includes a qualification database (e.g., age, sex, type of subscription, income level, and disability), birth and death database, a treatment database (e.g., principal and additional diagnosis encoded by the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision–Clinical Modification [ICD-10], hospitalization, treatment details, prescription details, and medical expenses), a health examination database (e.g., questionnaires addressing lifestyle and behavior, past medical history, family history, anthropometry, blood tests, chest radiography, and electrocardiography) and a medical care institution database (types of medical care institutions, location, equipment, and number of physicians). All enrolled individuals ≥20 years of age are mandated to undergo annual or biannual health examination. Details of the variables included in the NHID and health examinations have been described previously [17,18]. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Yeouido St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea (No. SC23ZISE0054), and requirements for informed consent were waived due to the retrospective design of the study and the use of anonymized patient data.

Study population

In total, 2,613,026 subjects with new-onset or confirmed type 2 diabetes mellitus, who underwent a national health examination in 2015 to 2016, were identified. Individuals <20 years of age (n=322), those with a history of HF (n=55,729), missing data (n=73,193), and those who developed HF within 1 year of follow-up (n=43,804) were excluded. Ultimately, 2,439,978 subjects were included in the final analysis.

Measurements and definitions

Hospitals that performed health examinations were certified by the NHIS, and laboratory investigations were performed in accordance with the procedures of the Korean Association of Laboratory Quality Control. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight divided by height squared (kg/m2). Obesity was defined as a BMI ≥25 kg/m2 in accordance with the Korean Society for the Study of Obesity criteria [19]. Blood tests for fasting glucose levels, lipid profiles (total cholesterol [TC], triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C], and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] levels), and serum creatinine were performed after an overnight fast. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was calculated using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula, as follows: 186×(serum creatinine)–1.154×age–0.203×0.742 (for females), and chronic kidney disease (CKD) was defined as an eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Information regarding smoking history, alcohol consumption (heavy alcohol consumption, ≥30 g/day), and regular exercise (>30 minutes of moderate-intensity activity at least five times per week or >20 minutes of vigorous-intensity exercise at least three times per week) was obtained using a self-administered questionnaire. Household income levels were dichotomized to <20%. Hypertension was defined as at least 1 claim per year with ICD-10 code I10–I11 and a prescription for antihypertensive medication or systolic/diastolic blood pressure ≥140/90 mm Hg. Dyslipidemia was defined as at least 1 claim per year under ICD-10 code E78, and the prescription of lipid-lowering medication or a TC level ≥240 mg/dL. Type 2 diabetes mellitus was defined as at least 1 claim per year under ICD-10 code E11–E14, and a prescription for antidiabetic medication or a fasting blood glucose level ≥126 mg/dL. The study participants were categorized into four groups according to the duration of diabetes: new-onset (no previous recorded disease code or history of antidiabetic medication prescription but with a fasting glucose level ≥126 mg/dL at health examination), <5, 5–10, or ≥10 years. Subjects were also categorized into four groups according to the diabetes treatment modality: none, 1–2 oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs), ≥3 OHAs, or insulin±OHA.

Study outcome

The primary outcome was incident HF, defined as recording of ICD-10 code I50 as the primary diagnosis during hospitalization which was retrieved from the claims database. Subjects were followed up until the end of 2020 or the incidence of HF. This was a longitudinal retrospective observational study with a median follow-up of 4.0 years (interquartile range, 3.3 to 4.3).

Statistical analyses

Baseline characteristics according to the duration of diabetes are expressed as mean±standard deviation (SD), median (interquartile range), or number (%). Subjects were classified into subgroups according to prespecified lipid levels: LDL-C <70 (reference group), and 70–99, 100–129, 130–159, and ≥160 mg/dL; TC <200 (reference group), and 200–240, and ≥240 mg/dL; non-HDL-C <100 (reference group) and 100–129, 130–159, 160–189, and ≥190 mg/dL; HDL-C <40 (reference group) and 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, and ≥70 mg/dL; triglycerides <100 (reference group) and 100–149, 150–199, and ≥200 mg/dL. Subjects were also classified according to the quartiles of TC/HDL-C ratio. The incidence rate of HF was calculated by dividing the number of cases by the total follow-up duration (per 1,000 person-years). The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for HF according to lipid level categories. The proportional hazards assumption was assessed using Schoenfeld residuals test with a logarithm of the cumulative hazard functions based on Kaplan-Meier estimates. There was no significant departure from proportionality to hazards over time. Model 1 was unadjusted; model 2 was adjusted for age and sex; model 3 was further adjusted for BMI, smoking, alcohol consumption, income, hypertension, CKD, and fasting glucose level; and model 4 was further adjusted for the use of lipid-lowering medications, insulin treatment, and OHAs. Because a history of cardiovascular disease may affect the risk for the development of HF, a sensitivity analysis was performed excluding subjects with a history of myocardial infarction/IHD (ICD-10 codes I20–I25), and stroke (ICD-10 codes I63, I64). Subgroup analyses were performed based on age, sex, obesity, use of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and the use of lipid-lowering medications during follow-up. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA), and differences with P<0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of the subjects according to diabetes duration are summarized in Table 1. Subjects with a longer duration of diabetes were older, more likely to be female, have a lower body weight and BMI, a favorable lifestyle with a lower frequency of current smoking and alcohol consumption, and a higher likelihood of regular exercise. The prevalence of dyslipidemia and the use of lipid-lowering medications were similar, except in the new-onset diabetes group; however, lipid levels were lower in subjects with a longer duration of diabetes, possibly due to more intensive treatment. Comorbid conditions, such as hypertension and CKD, and use of antidiabetic medications, were more prevalent in subjects with a longer duration of diabetes.

Baseline characteristics of the study population according to the duration of diabetes

The relationship between baseline LDL-C levels and the risk for incident HF was examined in different groups of patients with progressive diabetes (Table 2). Basically, there was a stepwise increase in the incidence rate of HF according to the duration of diabetes. In subjects with new-onset diabetes or a diabetes duration <5 years, an inverse relationship between lipid levels and HF risk was observed. Using an LDL-C level <70 mg/dL as the reference, all other groups with higher LDL-C levels exhibited a significantly lower risk for HF. In the new-onset diabetes group, the risk was approximately 25% lower in those with LDL-C levels 100–129, 130–159, and ≥160 mg/dL, compared to those with levels <70 mg/dL, with the lowest HR in the 130–159 mg/dL group (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.74). In the group with diabetes duration <5 years, the risk was approximately 10% lower in those with LDL-C levels 100–129, 130–159, and ≥160 mg/dL compared to those with levels <70 mg/dL, with the lowest HR in the 130–159 mg/dL group (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.89). However, a J-shaped association was observed in the long-standing diabetes group. In the group with diabetes duration 5 to 10 years, the risk for HF was approximately 5% lower in those with LDL-C level 70–99, 100– 129, and 130–159 mg/dL, but significantly increased in those with ≥160 mg/dL (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.13), compared to those with LDL-C <70 mg/dL. In the group with diabetes duration ≥10 years, the risk for HF was approximately 5% lower in those with LDL-C level 70–99 and 100–129 mg/dL, but significantly increased in those with 130–159 mg/dL (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.07) and ≥160 mg/dL (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.21), compared to those with LDL-C <70 mg/dL (Fig. 1A). This observation suggests different associations between LDL-C levels and the risk for HF, depending on the duration of diabetes.

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for incident heart failure according to the duration of diabetes and LDL-C level

Fig. 1.

Association between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level and heart failure risk according to the duration of diabetes (A) and number of antidiabetic medications (B). HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; DM, diabetes mellitus; OHA, oral hypoglycemic agent.

The relationship between other lipid parameters, such as non-HDL-C, TC, HDL-C, triglycerides, or TC/HDL-C ratio and the risk for incident HF was examined. Similar patterns were noted in the association between non-HDL-C and the risk for HF, with an inverse association in the new-onset and short-duration groups, and a J-shaped association in the longer diabetes duration groups (Table 3). In addition, individuals with low TC level or TC/HDL-C ratio in the new-onset diabetes group and those with high TC or TC/HDL-C ratio in the longer diabetes duration groups exhibited a higher risk for HF (Supplementary Tables 1 and 2). However, there was a stepwise increase in the risk of HF according to the triglyceride levels independent of the disease duration except new-onset diabetes (Supplementary Table 3). The risk was approximately 10% lower in those with HDL-C levels 40 to 69 mg/dL compared to those with levels <40 mg/dL showing no significant differences in the relationship between HDL-C levels and the risk of HF according to the duration of diabetes (Supplementary Table 4).

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for incident heart failure according to the duration of diabetes and non-HDLC level

Using the number of antidiabetic medications instead of diabetes duration to categorize diabetes status also resulted in similar patterns. In groups using none or 1–2 OHAs, a high LDL-C level was associated with a lower risk for HF. However, a J-shaped association was evident in the groups using ≥3 OHAs or insulin±OHA (Table 4, Fig. 1B).

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for incident heart failure according to the diabetes treatment and LDL-C level

Sensitivity analysis excluding subjects with a history of cardiovascular disease did not alter the results (Supplementary Table 5). In the subgroup analyses, the patterns of association between LDL-C and HF risk were generally similar. In new-onset diabetes, the inverse relationship was stronger in groups with younger age, male sex, non-obesity, and without dyslipidemia medication (P<0.001). In the group with diabetes duration ≥10 years, a J-shaped association was more prominent in groups with younger age, and with dyslipidemia medication (P for interaction <0.001) (Supplementary Tables 6-9). In subjects without SGLT2 inhibitors use, the result was similar to the original analysis. In subjects with SGLT2 inhibitor use, no statistically significant difference in the risk of HF was noted according to LDL-C levels, possibly due to low event number (Supplementary Table 10).

DISCUSSION

Using a nationwide database of almost 2.5 million individuals with diabetes, we demonstrated that the relationship between lipid parameters and the risk for HF varied according to the progression of diabetes. Among individuals with new-onset or short diabetes duration and using fewer OHAs, higher LDL-C or non-HDL-C levels were associated with a lower risk for HF. However, in individuals with long-standing diabetes and using multiple OHAs or insulin, J-shaped associations were noted, with high lipid levels being a risk factor for HF. These findings were similar and independent of the use of lipid-lowering medications.

Although several large-scale cohort studies have examined this issue, the relationship between blood lipid levels and the risk for HF remains controversial. An analysis from the Framingham Heart Study revealed that baseline non-HDL-C and HDL-C concentrations carried hazards for HF of 1.19 (95% CI, 1.11 to 1.27) and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.90) per SD increment, respectively [10]. The Apolipoprotein MOrtality RISk (AMORIS) study explored the influence of lipoprotein components on the development of congestive HF in 84,740 healthy Swedish men and women. Apolipoprotein B, apolipoprotein B/A1 ratio, LDL-C, triglyceride, non-HDL-C, TC, and TC/HDL-C ratio were positively associated with HF risk, while apolipoprotein A1 and HDL-C were negatively associated with HF risk in the general population [11]. Remnant cholesterol, encompassing the cholesterol content of very LDL, chylomicrons, and intermediate-density lipoprotein, was calculated by subtracting the HDL and LDL values from the TC value. An analysis of data from the UK Biobank revealed that remnant cholesterol was significantly associated with HF risk in patients with diabetes, independent of LDL-C levels [20]. In another long-term follow-up study of the Copenhagen General Population Study and the Copenhagen City Heart Study, a stepwise association between higher nonfasting triglyceride concentrations and a higher risk for HF was demonstrated. However, there was no relationship between LDL-C levels and the risk for HF, and even an inverse association in a subgroup of individuals without IHD [7]. From four large cohorts in the United States (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study, Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study, Framingham Heart Study Offspring Cohort, and Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis [MESA]), it was clearly shown that cumulative exposure to LDL-C, time-weighted average LDL-C, and the LDL-C slope change during young adulthood and middle age were not associated with incident HF [12]. In the MESA cohort, low HDL-C and high triglyceride levels were associated with incident HF in patients with diabetes but not in those without diabetes. LDL-C data were not reported in the MESA cohort [9]. Collectively, these findings are not identical, and the evaluation of LDL-C concentration as a risk factor for HF is scarce, especially in patients with diabetes.

Whether low LDL-C levels or statin treatment are beneficial in patients with established HF is another controversial subject. Several reports have suggested that low cholesterol is associated with worse prognosis in patients with HF, suggesting the existence of a “lipid paradox” [21]. High TC levels independently predicted higher survival in chronic HF and lower in-hospital mortality in patients with acute decompensated HF, after adjusting for multiple prognostic factors [13,15,16]. Low remnant cholesterol levels were also associated with an increased risk for all-cause mortality in patients with HF [14]. In a single-center study, high TC levels predicted worse outcomes in patients with underlying coronary artery disease, but better outcomes in patients without coronary artery disease [22]. Low LDL-C level (<100 mg/dL) was independently associated with increased mortality risk in patients with HF without diabetes, but no association was detected in patients with HF with diabetes [23]. In a study using data from the Korean NHID, a U-shaped association between LDL-C and HF mortality was found, with an optimal range of 130 to 159 mg/dL in statin non-users [24]. Potential mechanisms have been proposed for this counterintuitive phenomenon. Low lipid levels may reflect malnutrition and cachexia or may simply reflect advanced disease status and poor prognosis. In addition, low cholesterol levels may cause or reflect systemic inflammation, which predicts poor prognosis in HF [21]. In contrast, a prospective cohort study involving patients with chronic HF and IHD in Japan revealed that statin use, particularly high-dose statins, was beneficial in preventing all-cause death and HF-related admission [25].

In this study, we showed that high triglycerides and low HDL-C levels were associated with higher risk of HF confirming previous reports [6,8-10], and this was independent of diabetes progression status. However, the association between LDL-C or non-HDL-C and the risk of HF was modified by diabetes progression status. An explanation for the different associations between LDL-C levels and HF risk according to diabetes progression status remains unclear. The pathophysiology of HF in patients with diabetes is complex and encompasses both macro- or microvasculopathy, and vasculopathy-independent myocardial dysfunction. Inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, oxidative stress, impaired mitochondrial energetics, glycated proteins and lipids, and neurohormonal activation contribute to ischemic and diabetic cardiomyopathies by causing functional and anatomical abnormalities [2,26]. Moreover, the role and function of cholesterol in the myocardium and pathogenesis of HF are largely unknown. Cholesterol catabolism and the accumulation of intracellular bile acids promote inflammation in cardiomyocytes, leading to progression of HF [27]. LDL-C has been shown to bind lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and to protect against the immediate toxic effects of LPS on endothelial cells [28]. Lipoproteins’ protective role in HF may stem from an ability to diminish the LPS-induced elaboration of cytokines detrimental to the heart, such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF). TNF may contribute to HF progression and cardiac injury via its pro-apoptotic and negative inotropic effects [29]. A multidirectional Mendelian randomization study performed in Denmark reported that different patterns of remnant cholesterol and LDL-C cause atherosclerosis and progression to HF. Elevated remnant cholesterol levels are associated with IHD and inflammation. In contrast, elevated LDL-C is causally associated with IHD without inflammation, indicating a lower risk for HF [30]. In patients with long-standing diabetes, high lipid levels were associated with an increased risk of HF. There may be a difference in the causes of HF depending on the diabetes duration or severity of diabetes, although this could not be determined in this study due to the lack of HF subtypes recognition. As diabetes progress, the increased risk of HF seems to be more related to ischemia or coronary artery diseases [31]. Collectively, it is conceivable that different degrees of hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, inflammation, and their interactions with cholesterol at different stages of diabetes led to our findings [26]; however, this requires further clarification.

An important factor modifying the association between lipid levels and HF risk may be the presence or development of coronary heart disease (CHD). A Mendelian randomization study using genome-wide association study data from the UK Biobank provided genetic evidence supporting the relationship between dyslipidemia and a higher risk for HF, which was mainly due to the increased risk for CHD [32]. In patients with CHD or acute coronary syndrome, intensive lipid management with statins reduces the risk for incident HF [33,34]. A meta-analysis of major primary and secondary prevention statin trials demonstrated a modest reduction in the risk for nonfatal HF hospitalizations and a composite of nonfatal HF hospitalizations and HF death, although no significant associations were noted at the individual trial level [35]. In contrast, no such relationship between LDL-C levels and the risk for HF was observed in the general population, and even an inverse association was observed in a subgroup of individuals without IHD [7].

To the best of our knowledge, this was the largest study to examine the association between lipid levels and risk for HF in patients with diabetes. However, the present investigation had some limitations. First, because this was an observational study, causal relationships could not be confirmed. To minimize the possibility of reverse causality, patients with a history of HF or a new event during the first year of follow-up were excluded. Second, data regarding glycosylated hemoglobin levels or postload glucose levels were not available in the database. Therefore, the diagnosis of new-onset diabetes could be underestimated. We also subgrouped subjects based on diabetes duration and number of medications but could not integrate glucose control status. Third, because new-onset diabetes group includes people with relatively high glucose levels due to incidental diagnosis during health examination, lipid levels might have been influenced by hyperglycemia and associated conditions. Fourth, initiation of lipid-lowering therapy during the follow-up period may have affected our results. To avoid this effect, we performed a subgroup analysis based on the use of lipid-lowering agents during follow-up and found similar patterns in both groups. Finally, because Korea has a unique healthcare system, our results may not be applicable to other countries or ethnic populations, and further validation is warranted.

In conclusion, results of our study suggest a differential role of dyslipidemia in the development of HF depending on the progression status of diabetes, as defined by disease duration or antidiabetic medication usage. Higher lipid levels were associated with a lower risk of HF in individuals in the early stages of diabetes. In contrast, high lipid levels are a risk factor for HF in individuals with long-standing diabetes. These findings were generally conserved in the sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Further studies investigating the causality and mechanisms of these associations will guide the development of appropriate strategies for the prevention of HF.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Supplementary materials related to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.4093/dmj.2024.0066.

Supplementary Table 1.

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for incident heart failure according to the duration of diabetes and total cholesterol level

dmj-2024-0066-Supplementary-Table-1.pdf
Supplementary Table 2.

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for incident heart failure according to the duration of diabetes and TC/HDL-C ratio

dmj-2024-0066-Supplementary-Table-2.pdf
Supplementary Table 3.

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for incident heart failure according to the duration of diabetes and triglycerides level

dmj-2024-0066-Supplementary-Table-3.pdf
Supplementary Table 4.

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for incident heart failure according to the duration of diabetes and HDL-C level

dmj-2024-0066-Supplementary-Table-4.pdf
Supplementary Table 5.

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for incident heart failure according to the duration of diabetes and LDL-C level (excluding IHD, MI, and stroke)

dmj-2024-0066-Supplementary-Table-5.pdf
Supplementary Table 6.

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for incident heart failure according to the duration of diabetes and LDL-C level (subgroup analysis according to age groups)

dmj-2024-0066-Supplementary-Table-6.pdf
Supplementary Table 7.

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for incident heart failure according to the duration of diabetes and LDL-C level (subgroup analysis according to sex)

dmj-2024-0066-Supplementary-Table-7.pdf
Supplementary Table 8.

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for incident heart failure according to the duration of diabetes and LDL-C level (subgroup analysis according to obesity)

dmj-2024-0066-Supplementary-Table-8.pdf
Supplementary Table 9.

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for incident heart failure according to the duration of diabetes and LDL-C level (subgroup analysis according to the use of anti-dyslipidemic medication)

dmj-2024-0066-Supplementary-Table-9.pdf
Supplementary Table 10.

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for incident heart failure according to the duration of diabetes and LDL-C level (subgroup analysis according to the use of SGLT2 inhibitor)

dmj-2024-0066-Supplementary-Table-10.pdf

Notes

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Seung-Hwan Lee has been an associate editor of the Diabetes & Metabolism Journal since 2022. He was not involved in the review process of this article. The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conception or design: S.H.L., K.H., M.K.K.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: all authors.

Drafting the work or revising: S.H.L., M.K.K.

Final approval of the manuscript: all authors.

FUNDING

This study was supported by clinical research grant funded by Korean Society of Lipid and Atherosclerosis in 2023. The funder was not involved in the study design, in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, in the writing of the report, or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Acknowledgements

This study was performed using the database from the National Health Insurance System, and the results do not necessarily represent the opinion of the National Health Insurance Corporation.

References

1. Davies MJ, Drexel H, Jornayvaz FR, Pataky Z, Seferovic PM, Wanner C. Cardiovascular outcomes trials: a paradigm shift in the current management of type 2 diabetes. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2022;21:144.
2. Park JJ. Epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of heart failure in diabetes. Diabetes Metab J 2021;45:146–57.
3. Savarese G, Becher PM, Lund LH, Seferovic P, Rosano GM, Coats AJ. Global burden of heart failure: a comprehensive and updated review of epidemiology. Cardiovasc Res 2023;118:3272–87.
4. Pandey A, Khan MS, Patel KV, Bhatt DL, Verma S. Predicting and preventing heart failure in type 2 diabetes. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2023;11:607–24.
5. Park JH, Ha KH, Kim BY, Lee JH, Kim DJ. Trends in cardiovascular complications and mortality among patients with diabetes in South Korea. Diabetes Metab J 2021;45:120–4.
6. Lee SE, Yoo J, Choi HS, Han K, Kim KA. Two-year changes in diabetic kidney disease phenotype and the risk of heart failure: a nationwide population-based study in Korea. Diabetes Metab J 2023;47:523–34.
7. Varbo A, Nordestgaard BG. Nonfasting triglycerides, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and heart failure risk: two cohort studies of 113554 individuals. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2018;38:464–72.
8. Halldin AK, Lissner L, Lernfelt B, Bjorkelund C. Cholesterol and triglyceride levels in midlife and risk of heart failure in women, a longitudinal study: the prospective population study of women in Gothenburg. BMJ Open 2020;10e036709.
9. Ebong IA, Goff DC Jr, Rodriguez CJ, Chen H, Sibley CT, Bertoni AG. Association of lipids with incident heart failure among adults with and without diabetes mellitus: multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. Circ Heart Fail 2013;6:371–8.
10. Velagaleti RS, Massaro J, Vasan RS, Robins SJ, Kannel WB, Levy D. Relations of lipid concentrations to heart failure incidence: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 2009;120:2345–51.
11. Holme I, Aastveit AH, Hammar N, Jungner I, Walldius G. Lipoprotein components and risk of congestive heart failure in 84,740 men and women in the Apolipoprotein MOrtality RISk study (AMORIS). Eur J Heart Fail 2009;11:1036–42.
12. Zhang Y, Pletcher MJ, Vittinghoff E, Clemons AM, Jacobs DR Jr, Allen NB, et al. Association between cumulative low-density lipoprotein cholesterol exposure during young adulthood and middle age and risk of cardiovascular events. JAMA Cardiol 2021;6:1406–13.
13. Horwich TB, Hernandez AF, Dai D, Yancy CW, Fonarow GC. Cholesterol levels and in-hospital mortality in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. Am Heart J 2008;156:1170–6.
14. Zhao L, Zhao X, Tian P, Liang L, Huang B, Huang L, et al. Predictive value of remnant cholesterol level for all-cause mortality in heart failure patients. Front Cardiovasc Med 2023;10:1063562.
15. Rauchhaus M, Clark AL, Doehner W, Davos C, Bolger A, Sharma R, et al. The relationship between cholesterol and survival in patients with chronic heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;42:1933–40.
16. Horwich TB, Hamilton MA, Maclellan WR, Fonarow GC. Low serum total cholesterol is associated with marked increase in mortality in advanced heart failure. J Card Fail 2002;8:216–24.
17. Kim MK, Han K, Lee SH. Current trends of big data research using the Korean National Health Information Database. Diabetes Metab J 2022;46:552–63.
18. Cho SW, Kim JH, Choi HS, Ahn HY, Kim MK, Rhee EJ. Big data research in the field of endocrine diseases using the Korean National Health Information Database. Endocrinol Metab (Seoul) 2023;38:10–24.
19. Haam JH, Kim BT, Kim EM, Kwon H, Kang JH, Park JH, et al. Diagnosis of obesity: 2022 update of clinical practice guidelines for obesity by the Korean Society for the Study of Obesity. J Obes Metab Syndr 2023;32:121–9.
20. Wang R, Gerstein HC, Van Spall HG, Lip GY, Olier I, Ortega-Martorell S, et al. Relationship between remnant cholesterol and risk of heart failure in participants with diabetes mellitus. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes 2023;9:537–45.
21. Horwich T. Low-density lipoprotein in the setting of congestive heart failure: is lower really better? Curr Atheroscler Rep 2009;11:343–9.
22. Sakatani T, Shirayama T, Suzaki Y, Yamamoto T, Mani H, Kawasaki T, et al. The association between cholesterol and mortality in heart failure: comparison between patients with and without coronary artery disease. Int Heart J 2005;46:619–29.
23. Gouveia R, Madureira S, Elias C, Neves A, Soares PR, Soares-Carreira M, et al. Lower low density lipoprotein cholesterol associates to higher mortality in non-diabetic heart failure patients. Int J Cardiol Cardiovasc Risk Prev 2023;18:200197.
24. Yi SW, An SJ, Park HB, Yi JJ, Ohrr H. Association between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular mortality in statin non-users: a prospective cohort study in 14.9 million Korean adults. Int J Epidemiol 2022;51:1178–89.
25. Oikawa T, Sakata Y, Nochioka K, Miura M, Tsuji K, Onose T, et al. Prognostic impact of statin intensity in heart failure patients with ischemic heart disease: a report from the CHART-2 (Chronic Heart Failure Registry and Analysis in the Tohoku District 2) Study. J Am Heart Assoc 2018;7e007524.
26. Fan Y, Yan Z, Li T, Li A, Fan X, Qi Z, et al. Primordial drivers of diabetes heart disease: comprehensive insights into insulin resistance. Diabetes Metab J 2024;48:19–36.
27. Mao H, Angelini A, Li S, Wang G, Li L, Patterson C, et al. CRAT links cholesterol metabolism to innate immune responses in the heart. Nat Metab 2023;5:1382–94.
28. Rauchhaus M, Coats AJ, Anker SD. The endotoxin-lipoprotein hypothesis. Lancet 2000;356:930–3.
29. Feldman AM, Combes A, Wagner D, Kadakomi T, Kubota T, Li YY, et al. The role of tumor necrosis factor in the pathophysiology of heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;35:537–44.
30. Varbo A, Benn M, Tybjaerg-Hansen A, Nordestgaard BG. Elevated remnant cholesterol causes both low-grade inflammation and ischemic heart disease, whereas elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol causes ischemic heart disease without inflammation. Circulation 2013;128:1298–309.
31. Palazzuoli A, Iacoviello M. Diabetes leading to heart failure and heart failure leading to diabetes: epidemiological and clinical evidence. Heart Fail Rev 2023;28:585–96.
32. Xiao J, Ji J, Zhang N, Yang X, Chen K, Chen L, et al. Association of genetically predicted lipid traits and lipid-modifying targets with heart failure. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2023;30:358–66.
33. Kjekshus J, Pedersen TR, Olsson AG, Faergeman O, Pyorala K. The effects of simvastatin on the incidence of heart failure in patients with coronary heart disease. J Card Fail 1997;3:249–54.
34. Scirica BM, Morrow DA, Cannon CP, Ray KK, Sabatine MS, Jarolim P, et al. Intensive statin therapy and the risk of hospitalization for heart failure after an acute coronary syndrome in the PROVE IT-TIMI 22 study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:2326–31.
35. Preiss D, Campbell RT, Murray HM, Ford I, Packard CJ, Sattar N, et al. The effect of statin therapy on heart failure events: a collaborative meta-analysis of unpublished data from major randomized trials. Eur Heart J 2015;36:1536–46.

Article information Continued

Fig. 1.

Association between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level and heart failure risk according to the duration of diabetes (A) and number of antidiabetic medications (B). HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; DM, diabetes mellitus; OHA, oral hypoglycemic agent.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of the study population according to the duration of diabetes

Characteristic New-onset (n=715,838) <5 years (n=660,150) 5–10 years (n=475,415) ≥10 years (n=588,575)
Age, yr 53.6±12.3 58.6±11.3 61.9±10.5 65.3±9.8
Male sex 496,999 (69.4) 377,949 (57.3) 269,767 (56.7) 325,798 (55.4)
Height, cm 165.3±9.1 162.6±9.3 161.8±9.3 161.0±9.1
Weight, kg 70.2 ±13.4 68.4±12.8 66.4±11.8 63.9±11.0
Body mass index, kg/m2 25.6±3.7 25.8±3.6 25.3±3.4 24.6±3.2
Waist circumferences, cm 86.1±9.2 86.8±9.1 86.2±8.8 85.3±8.6
Systolic BP, mm Hg 129.4±15.3 127.7±14.6 128.0±14.7 128.5±15.3
Diastolic BP, mm Hg 80.3±10.3 78.4±9.7 77.3±9.5 75.8±9.6
Fasting glucose, mg/dL 151.5±39.1 138.0±46.3 140.4±45.0 147.5±51.0
Total cholesterol, mg/dL 207.2±41.9 184.5±43.2 174.5±39.2 169.5±38.6
Triglyceride, mg/dL 153 (103–230) 136 (95–198) 128 (90–183) 120 (85–172)
HDL-C, mg/dL 52.5±14.0 50.6±13.0 50.3±12.9 49.9±13.0
LDL-C, mg/dL 119.6±38.3 102.5±38.3 94.7±35.0 91.8±34.2
eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2 93.6±59.8 91.7±51.4 88.4±49.7 82.8±47.4
Smoking
 None 334,396 (46.7) 367,882 (55.7) 275,136 (57.9) 363,862 (61.8)
 Ex 162,138 (22.7) 145,934 (22.1) 106,663 (22.4) 131,522 (22.4)
 Current 219,304 (30.6) 146,334 (22.2) 93,616 (19.7) 93,191 (15.8)
Heavy alcohol consumption
 None 303,900 (42.5) 392,734 (59.5) 299,370 (63.0) 405,825 (69.0)
 Mild 316,321 (44.2) 210,076 (31.8) 139,809 (29.4) 148,213 (25.2)
 Heavy 95,617 (13.4) 57,340 (8.7) 36,236 (7.6) 34,537 (5.9)
Regular exercise 145,932 (20.4) 138,410 (21.0) 106,312 (22.4) 140,002 (23.8)
Low income 148,351 (20.7) 144,516 (21.9) 107,920 (22.7) 124,075 (21.1)
Hypertension 316,653 (44.2) 388,645 (58.9) 309,433 (65.1) 403,699 (68.6)
Dyslipidemia 252,988 (35.3) 432,780 (65.6) 308,761 (65.0) 378,993 (64.4)
Dyslipidemia medication 134,387 (18.8) 412,270 (62.5) 297,686 (62.6) 367,244 (62.4)
Chronic kidney disease 32,944 (4.6) 43,527 (6.6) 48,773 (10.3) 106,624 (18.1)
DM medication
 Insulin 0 43,714 (6.6) 38,334 (8.1) 118,051 (20.1)
 GLP-1RA 0 253 (0.04) 351 (0.07) 1,044 (0.18)
 SGLT2i 0 25,612 (3.9) 16,173 (3.4) 21,585 (3.7)
 Metformin 0 603,169 (91.4) 426,434 (89.7) 515,420 (87.6)
 TZD 0 43,569 (6.6) 53,715 (11.3) 86,579 (14.7)
 DPP4i 0 324,665 (49.2) 275,867 (58.0) 375,612 (63.8)
 AGI 0 8,648 (1.3) 17,135 (3.6) 40,911 (7.0)
 Meglitinide 0 1,838 (0.3) 2,632 (0.6) 6,501 (1.1)
 Sulfonylurea 0 183,554 (27.8) 244,495 (51.4) 396,811 (67.4)

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation, number (%), or median (interquartile range). P values for the trend were <0.0001 for all variables.

BP, blood pressure; HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; DM, diabetes mellitus; GLP-1RA, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist; SGLT2i, sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor; TZD, thiazolidinedione; DPP4i, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor; AGI, alpha glucosidase inhibitor.

Table 2.

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for incident heart failure according to the duration of diabetes and LDL-C level

DM duration LDL-C, mg/dL Number No. of events Incidence ratea Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
New-onset <70 61,262 3,412 14.97 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.)
70–99 157,707 6,568 11.04 0.74 (0.71–0.77) 0.80 (0.77–0.84) 0.82 (0.79–0.86) 0.82 (0.79–0.85)
100–129 226,382 7,850 9.15 0.61 (0.59–0.64) 0.72 (0.69–0.75) 0.75 (0.72–0.78) 0.74 (0.71–0.77)
130–159 169,695 5,312 8.25 0.55 (0.53–0.58) 0.68 (0.65–0.71) 0.71 (0.68–0.74) 0.71 (0.68–0.74)
≥160 100,792 3,215 8.44 0.56 (0.54–0.59) 0.72 (0.69–0.76) 0.75 (0.71–0.79) 0.75 (0.71–0.78)
<5 years <70 131,672 7,797 15.58 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.)
70–99 205,041 11,369 14.41 0.92 (0.90–0.95) 0.93 (0.90–0.95) 0.94 (0.91–0.96) 0.93 (0.91–0.96)
100–129 174,122 8,871 13.16 0.84 (0.82–0.87) 0.88 (0.86–0.91) 0.89 (0.86–0.92) 0.88 (0.86–0.91)
130–159 97,704 4,650 12.25 0.79 (0.76–0.81) 0.86 (0.83–0.89) 0.86 (0.83–0.89) 0.86 (0.83–0.89)
≥160 51,611 2,437 12.20 0.78 (0.75–0.82) 0.91 (0.88–0.96) 0.90 (0.86–0.95) 0.91 (0.87–0.95)
5–10 years <70 117,410 8,366 18.89 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.)
70–99 165,179 11,263 17.88 0.95 (0.92–0.97) 0.94 (0.92–0.97) 0.95 (0.93–0.98) 0.96 (0.93–0.98)
100–129 119,072 7,995 17.51 0.93 (0.90–0.95) 0.93 (0.90–0.96) 0.94 (0.91–0.97) 0.94 (0.91–0.97)
130–159 52,931 3,583 17.63 0.93 (0.90–0.97) 0.95 (0.91–0.99) 0.95 (0.91–0.98) 0.95 (0.91–0.99)
≥160 20,823 1,578 19.85 1.05 (0.99–1.11) 1.11 (1.05–1.17) 1.07 (1.02–1.13) 1.07 (1.02–1.13)
≥10 years <70 162,341 16,375 27.64 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.)
70–99 207,641 19,699 25.63 0.93 (0.91–0.95) 0.93 (0.91–0.95) 0.95 (0.93–0.97) 0.96 (0.94–0.98)
100–129 139,362 13,070 25.20 0.91 (0.89–0.93) 0.92 (0.90–0.95) 0.94 (0.91–0.96) 0.95 (0.93–0.98)
130–159 57,957 5,836 27.08 0.98 (0.95–1.01) 1.01 (0.98–1.04) 1.01 (0.98–1.04) 1.03 (1.00–1.07)
≥160 21,274 2,378 30.47 1.10 (1.05–1.15) 1.18 (1.13–1.23) 1.13 (1.09–1.18) 1.16 (1.11–1.21)

Model 1: unadjusted; Model 2: adjusted for age and sex; Model 3: adjusted for model 2+body mass index, smoking, drinking, income, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and fasting glucose; Model 4: adjusted for model 3+dyslipidemia medication, insulin treatment, and oral hypoglycemic agent.

LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; DM, diabetes mellitus.

a

Per 1,000 person-years.

Table 3.

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for incident heart failure according to the duration of diabetes and non-HDLC level

DM duration Non- HDL-C, mg/dL Number No. of events Incidence ratea Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
New-onset <100 60,150 3,646 16.36 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.)
100–129 139,379 5,950 11.31 0.69 (0.66–0.72) 0.77 (0.74–0.81) 0.79 (0.76–0.82) 0.78 (0.75–0.82)
130–159 205,034 7,111 9.15 0.56 (0.54–0.58) 0.69 (0.66–0.72) 0.71 (0.68–0.74) 0.70 (0.68–0.73)
160–189 174,777 5,422 8.18 0.50 (0.48–0.52) 0.68 (0.65–0.70) 0.70 (0.67–0.73) 0.69 (0.66–0.72)
≥190 136,498 4,228 8.19 0.50 (0.48–0.52) 0.74 (0.71–0.77) 0.75 (0.71–0.78) 0.75 (0.71–0.78)
<5 years <100 146,955 8,773 15.70 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.)
100–129 183,329 10,195 14.45 0.92 (0.89–0.95) 0.95 (0.92–0.98) 0.95 (0.92–0.98) 0.95 (0.92–0.97)
130–159 161,682 8,278 13.22 0.84 (0.82–0.87) 0.92 (0.89–0.95) 0.91 (0.88–0.94) 0.91 (0.88–0.94)
160–189 100,424 4,698 12.04 0.77 (0.74–0.79) 0.89 (0.86–0.93) 0.87 (0.84–0.90) 0.87 (0.84–0.91)
≥190 67,760 3,180 12.13 0.77 (0.74–0.80) 0.99 (0.95–1.03) 0.94 (0.90–0.98) 0.95 (0.91–0.99)
5–10 years <100 134,617 9,464 18.61 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.)
100–129 149,075 10,164 17.87 0.96 (0.93–0.99) 0.98 (0.96–1.01) 0.98 (0.95–1.00) 0.98 (0.95–1.01)
130–159 110,247 7,340 17.35 0.93 (0.90–0.96) 0.97 (0.94–1.00) 0.95 (0.92–0.98) 0.95 (0.92–0.98)
160–189 54,512 3,769 18.03 0.97 (0.93–1.00) 1.04 (1.00–1.07) 0.99 (0.96–1.04) 1.00 (0.97–1.04)
≥190 26,964 2,048 19.92 1.07 (1.02–1.12) 1.21 (1.15–1.27) 1.11 (1.06–1.17) 1.12 (1.06–1.17)
≥10 years <100 192,941 18,870 26.71 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.)
100–129 185,545 17,412 25.32 0.95 (0.93–0.97) 0.97 (0.95–0.99) 0.96 (0.94–0.98) 0.97 (0.95–0.99)
130–159 126,232 11,992 25.51 0.95 (0.93–0.98) 0.99 (0.97–1.01) 0.97 (0.95–0.99) 0.98 (0.96–1.01)
160–189 57,331 5,946 28.00 1.05 (1.02–1.08) 1.12 (1.08–1.15) 1.06 (1.03–1.10) 1.09 (1.06–1.12)
≥190 26,526 3,138 32.41 1.21 (1.17–1.26) 1.35 (1.30–1.40) 1.23 (1.18–1.27) 1.25 (1.20–1.30)

Model 1: unadjusted; Model 2: adjusted for age and sex; Model 3: adjusted for model 2+body mass index, smoking, drinking, income, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and fasting glucose; Model 4: adjusted for model 3+dyslipidemia medication, insulin treatment, and oral hypoglycemic agent.

HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; DM, diabetes mellitus.

a

Per 1,000 person-years.

Table 4.

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for incident heart failure according to the diabetes treatment and LDL-C level

DM medication LDL-C, mg/dL Number No. of events Incidence ratea Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
None <70 61,264 3,412 14.97 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.)
70–99 157,707 6,568 11.04 0.74 (0.71–0.77) 0.81 (0.77–0.84) 0.83 (0.79–0.86) 0.82 (0.79–0.85)
100–129 226,384 7,850 9.15 0.61 (0.59–0.64) 0.72 (0.69–0.75) 0.75 (0.72–0.78) 0.74 (0.71–0.77)
130–159 169,695 5,312 8.25 0.55 (0.53–0.58) 0.69 (0.66–0.72) 0.72 (0.69–0.75) 0.71 (0.68–0.74)
≥160 100,792 3,215 8.44 0.56 (0.54–0.59) 0.73 (0.69–0.76) 0.76 (0.72–0.80) 0.75 (0.71–0.79)
1–2 OHA <70 215,417 14,909 18.33 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.)
70–99 332,633 21,363 16.80 0.92 (0.90–0.94) 0.93 (0.91–0.95) 0.94 (0.92–0.96) 0.93 (0.91–0.95)
100–129 266,036 16,029 15.66 0.85 (0.83–0.87) 0.90 (0.88–0.92) 0.91 (0.89–0.93) 0.89 (0.87–0.92)
130–159 133,427 7,682 14.91 0.81 (0.79–0.83) 0.91 (0.88–0.93) 0.92 (0.89–0.94) 0.90 (0.87–0.92)
≥160 61,384 3,484 14.74 0.80 (0.77–0.83) 0.97 (0.94–1.01) 0.97 (0.93–1.01) 0.96 (0.92–0.99)
≥3 OHA <70 141,846 10,154 19.09 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.)
70–99 177,105 12,033 17.90 0.94 (0.91–0.96) 0.96 (0.93–0.98) 0.97 (0.94–0.99) 0.96 (0.93–0.98)
100–129 120,246 8,223 17.91 0.94 (0.91–0.96) 0.98 (0.95–1.01) 0.98 (0.95–1.01) 0.96 (0.93–0.99)
130–159 53,752 3,666 17.81 0.93 (0.90–0.97) 1.01 (0.97–1.05) 1.01 (0.97–1.04) 0.99 (0.95–1.03)
≥160 22,191 1,572 18.56 0.97 (0.92–1.02) 1.13 (1.07–1.19) 1.09 (1.04–1.15) 1.08 (1.03–1.14)
Insulin±OHA <70 54,158 7,475 39.19 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.) 1 (ref.)
70–99 68,123 8,935 36.68 0.94 (0.91–0.96) 0.96 (0.94–0.99) 0.98 (0.95–1.01) 0.97 (0.94–1.00)
100–129 46,272 5,684 34.01 0.87 (0.84–0.90) 0.93 (0.90–0.97) 0.95 (0.92–0.99) 0.94 (0.91–0.97)
130–159 21,413 2,721 35.23 0.90 (0.86–0.94) 1.01 (0.96–1.05) 1.02 (0.98–1.06) 1.00 (0.96–1.05)
≥160 10,133 1,337 36.94 0.94 (0.89–0.99) 1.14 (1.08–1.21) 1.14 (1.07–1.20) 1.13 (1.06–1.19)

Model 1: unadjusted; Model 2: adjusted for age and sex; Model 3: adjusted for model 2+body mass index, smoking, drinking, income, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and fasting glucose; Model 4: adjusted for model 3+dyslipidemia medication.

LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; DM, diabetes mellitus; OHA, oral hypoglycemic agent.

a

Per 1,000 person-years.