Higher Global Diet Quality Score Is Inversely Associated with Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in US Women.
diabetes
diet quality
epidemiology
nutrition
women
Journal
The Journal of nutrition
ISSN: 1541-6100
Titre abrégé: J Nutr
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0404243
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 10 2021
23 10 2021
Historique:
received:
27
02
2021
revised:
29
03
2021
accepted:
25
05
2021
entrez:
24
10
2021
pubmed:
25
10
2021
medline:
11
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We have developed a diet quality metric intended for global use. To assess its utility in high-income settings, an evaluation of its ability to predict chronic disease is needed. We aimed to prospectively examine the ability of the Global Diet Quality Score (GDQS) to predict the risk of type 2 diabetes in the United States, examine potential differences of association by age, and compare the GDQS with other diet quality scores. Health, lifestyle, and diet information was collected from women (n = 88,520) in the Nurses' Health Study II aged 27-44 y at baseline through repeated questionnaires between 1991 and 2017. The overall GDQS consists of 25 food groups. Points are awarded for higher intake of healthy groups and lower intake of unhealthy groups (maximum of 49 points). Multivariable HRs were computed for confirmed type 2 diabetes using proportional hazards models. We also compared the GDQS with the Minimum Diet Diversity score for Women (MDD-W) and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index-2010 (AHEI-2010). We ascertained 6305 incident cases of type 2 diabetes during follow-up. We observed a lower risk of diabetes with higher GDQS; the multivariable HR comparing extreme quintiles of the GDQS was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.91; P-trend < 0.001). The magnitude of association was similar between women aged <50 y and those aged ≥50 y. An inverse association was observed with lower intake of unhealthy components (HR comparing extreme quintiles of the unhealthy submetric: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.69, 0.84; P-trend < 0.001) but was not with the healthy submetric. The inverse association for each 1-SD increase in the GDQS (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91, 0.96) was stronger (P < 0.001) than for the MDD-W (HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.04) but was slightly weaker (P = 0.03) than for the AHEI-2010 (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.88, 0.94). A higher GDQS was inversely associated with type 2 diabetes risk in US women of reproductive age or older, mainly from lower intake of unhealthy foods. The GDQS performed nearly as well as the AHEI-2010.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
We have developed a diet quality metric intended for global use. To assess its utility in high-income settings, an evaluation of its ability to predict chronic disease is needed.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to prospectively examine the ability of the Global Diet Quality Score (GDQS) to predict the risk of type 2 diabetes in the United States, examine potential differences of association by age, and compare the GDQS with other diet quality scores.
METHODS
Health, lifestyle, and diet information was collected from women (n = 88,520) in the Nurses' Health Study II aged 27-44 y at baseline through repeated questionnaires between 1991 and 2017. The overall GDQS consists of 25 food groups. Points are awarded for higher intake of healthy groups and lower intake of unhealthy groups (maximum of 49 points). Multivariable HRs were computed for confirmed type 2 diabetes using proportional hazards models. We also compared the GDQS with the Minimum Diet Diversity score for Women (MDD-W) and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index-2010 (AHEI-2010).
RESULTS
We ascertained 6305 incident cases of type 2 diabetes during follow-up. We observed a lower risk of diabetes with higher GDQS; the multivariable HR comparing extreme quintiles of the GDQS was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.91; P-trend < 0.001). The magnitude of association was similar between women aged <50 y and those aged ≥50 y. An inverse association was observed with lower intake of unhealthy components (HR comparing extreme quintiles of the unhealthy submetric: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.69, 0.84; P-trend < 0.001) but was not with the healthy submetric. The inverse association for each 1-SD increase in the GDQS (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91, 0.96) was stronger (P < 0.001) than for the MDD-W (HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.04) but was slightly weaker (P = 0.03) than for the AHEI-2010 (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.88, 0.94).
CONCLUSIONS
A higher GDQS was inversely associated with type 2 diabetes risk in US women of reproductive age or older, mainly from lower intake of unhealthy foods. The GDQS performed nearly as well as the AHEI-2010.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34689196
pii: S0022-3166(22)00482-5
doi: 10.1093/jn/nxab195
pmc: PMC8542093
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
168S-175SSubventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U01 CA176726
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) on behalf of the American Society for Nutrition 2021.
Références
Eur J Epidemiol. 2017 May;32(5):363-375
pubmed: 28397016
J Nutr. 2012 Jun;142(6):1009-18
pubmed: 22513989
Diabetes Care. 1997 Jul;20(7):1183-97
pubmed: 9203460
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019 Nov;157:107843
pubmed: 31518657
Diabetes Care. 2020 Jan;43(Suppl 1):S98-S110
pubmed: 31862752
Am J Clin Nutr. 2018 Jan 1;107(1):120-129
pubmed: 29381797
Am J Epidemiol. 1999 Mar 15;149(6):531-40
pubmed: 10084242
Diabetes Care. 2015 Sep;38(9):1804-12
pubmed: 26294775
J Am Diet Assoc. 1993 Jul;93(7):790-6
pubmed: 8320406
Curr Diab Rep. 2012 Jan 31;:
pubmed: 22289979
Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2012 Dec;14(6):515-24
pubmed: 23001745
Br J Cancer. 2020 May;122(10):1562-1570
pubmed: 32210367
Arch Intern Med. 2008 Apr 14;168(7):713-20
pubmed: 18413553
JAMA. 2002 May 8;287(18):2414-23
pubmed: 11988062
Lancet. 1991 Sep 28;338(8770):774-8
pubmed: 1681160
J Hum Nutr Diet. 2019 Feb;32(1):86-97
pubmed: 30091209
Nutr Hosp. 2015 Nov 01;32(5):1872-84
pubmed: 26545641
Am J Epidemiol. 2017 Apr 1;185(7):570-584
pubmed: 28338828
Diabetes Care. 2007 Jul;30(7):1753-7
pubmed: 17429059
Diabetes Care. 2018 Apr;41(4):723-730
pubmed: 29269510
Am J Epidemiol. 2016 Apr 1;183(7):622-33
pubmed: 26940115
Br J Nutr. 2020 Dec 14;124(11):1133-1144
pubmed: 32600500
Biochim Biophys Acta. 2009 Jul;1790(7):671-81
pubmed: 18501198
Ann Epidemiol. 2017 Jun;27(6):384-390.e1
pubmed: 28641758
Curr Dev Nutr. 2017 Nov 02;1(12):
pubmed: 29955691
Am J Epidemiol. 2018 Dec 1;187(12):2651-2661
pubmed: 30165478
J Am Diet Assoc. 2010 Jun;110(6):911-16.e12
pubmed: 20497781
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2018 Sep;118(9):1603-1621
pubmed: 30146072
Am J Clin Nutr. 2014 Aug;100(2):667-75
pubmed: 24944061
Diabetes. 1979 Dec;28(12):1039-57
pubmed: 510803
Am J Clin Nutr. 2016 Feb;103(2):474-80
pubmed: 26739035
BMJ. 2018 Jun 13;361:k2396
pubmed: 29898951
Am J Public Health. 2016 Sep;106(9):1573-81
pubmed: 27459450
Lancet. 2019 Feb 2;393(10170):447-492
pubmed: 30660336
Nutr Rev. 2018 Jun 1;76(6):395-417
pubmed: 29590460
Eur J Nutr. 2019 Sep;58(6):2243-2251
pubmed: 29987352
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 3;13(4):e0195103
pubmed: 29614105
Physiol Rev. 2007 Jan;87(1):315-424
pubmed: 17237348
Nutrients. 2015 Oct 21;7(10):8633-44
pubmed: 26506373
Diabetes Care. 2020 Jan;43(Suppl 1):S48-S65
pubmed: 31862748