TABLE 2.

ORs and 95% CIs for cardiovascular health metrics associated with UPFs: US adults, NHANES 2011–2016¹

	Quartiles of usual percentage of calories from UPFs (n = 11,246)
	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	P value3
Midpoint and range of usual percentage of calories from UPFs	40.4% (26.1–46.6%)	51.2% (46.7–55.3%)	59.5% (55.4–64.2%)	70.5% (64.3–86.0%)
Health metrics
Age, sex, and race and Hispanic origin adjusted
Average CVH vs. optimum	1.00	1.43 (1.32, 1.55)	1.89 (1.64, 2.17)	2.72 (2.18, 3.39)	<0.001
Inadequate CVH vs. optimum	1.00	1.55 (1.36, 1.77)	2.18 (1.73, 2.74)	3.40 (2.37, 4.89)	<0.001
Fully adjusted2
Average CVH vs. optimum	1.00	1.35 (1.25, 1.45)	1.70 (1.49, 1.94)	2.30 (1.87, 2.84)	<0.001
Inadequate CVH vs. optimum	1.00	1.40 (1.23, 1.60)	1.82 (1.45, 2.29)	2.57 (1.79, 3.70)	<0.001

¹Optimum CVH: CVH metrics scores 9–12; average CVH: CVH metrics scores 5–8; inadequate CVH: CVH metrics scores 0–4. CVH, cardiovascular health (excluding diet component); Q, quartile; UPF: ultraprocessed food.

²Multinomial logistic regression models were used to estimate ORs and corresponding 95% CIs, and were adjusted for age, sex, race and Hispanic origin, education, and poverty-to-income ratio (the ratio of family income to the Department of Health and Human Services poverty measure).

³P value of β-coefficient for percentage of calories (continuous) from UPFs in the multinomial logistic regression models.