Table 3.
Conventional and MR-based analysis of associations between per unit of increase in SHBG level and CHD risk among men and women in the UKB.
| Event/total (%) | Men 10405/128 322 (8.11) |
Women 4512/135103 (3.34) |
|---|---|---|
| Conventional analysis: HR (95% CI) | ||
| Model 1 | 0.77 (0.73, 0.81) | 0.68 (0.64, 0.72) |
| Model 2 | 0.84 (0.80, 0.88) | 0.79 (0.74, 0.84) |
| Model 3 | 0.93 (0.88, 0.97) | 0.88 (0.82, 0.94) |
| Model 4 | 0.88 (0.83, 0.94) | 0.89 (0.83, 0.96) |
| MR-based analysis: pORa (95% CI) | ||
| Model 5 | 0.74 (0.62, 0.88) | 0.73 (0.58, 0.92) |
| Model 6 | 0.75 (0.63, 0.89) | 0.69 (0.54, 0.89) |
In conventional analysis, we used Cox proportional hazard model to calculate HR for CHD risk per unit (log nmol/L) of increase in serum SHBG levels.
Model 1: Adjusted for age, assessment center, Townsend Deprivation Index, family history of cardiovascular diseases, smoking status, alcohol intake frequency, and physical activity level; Model 2: Model 1+prevalent diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia at baseline; Model 3: Model 2+BMI; Model 4: Model 3+TT [in linear MR analysis, predictive odds ratios for CHD risk per unit (log nmol/L) increase in genetically predicted SHBG were calculated by using a 2-stage least squares logistic regression model (24)]; Model 5: adjusted for age, BMI, assessment centers, genotyping arrays, and top 10 genetic principal components; Model 6: Model 5+TT.
predicted odds ratio.