Skip to main content
. 2011 Jan 21;60(2):582–589. doi: 10.2337/db10-0915

TABLE 4.

Adjusted* odds ratios (and 95% confidence intervals) from multivariate logistic regression models for a given difference in risk factor level for being in the upper quintile versus the lower four quintiles of progression of ICA IMT from EDIC year 1 to EDIC year 6

IC oxLDL in LDL-IC
Model 1 AGE-LDL in LDL-IC
Model 2
Quartile
 Lowest 1.00 1.00
 2 1.33 (0.53–3.29) 1.66 (0.73–3.79)
 3 2.29 (0.98–5.35) 1.65 (0.73–3.72)
 4 4.08 (1.80–9.23) 2.62 (1.18–5.79)
Age (1-year increase) 1.05 (1.01–1.10) 1.05 (1.01–1.09)
Sex (men vs. women) 1.07 (0.60–1.93) 1.09 (0.61–1.94)
Study group (intensive vs. conventional) 0.88 (0.51–1.50) 0.84 (0.50–1.42)
Retinopathy cohort (second vs. primary) 0.55 (0.25–1.23) 0.60 (0.28–1.36)
Duration (1-year increase) 1.08 (0.99–1.18) 1.09 (0.99–1.19)
Hemoglobin A1c (1-unit increase, %) 1.05 (0.88–1.24) 1.08 (0.91–1.27)
Ln of AER (1-unit increase, mg/24 h) 0.98 (0.67–1.43) 0.95 (0.65–1.37)
Cholesterol (10 unit increase, mg/dL)
 LDL 1.06 (0.97–1.16) 1.07 (0.98–1.17)
 HDL 0.80 (0.62–1.04) 0.77 (0.60–0.99)
Diastolic blood pressure (10-unit increase, mmHg) 1.47 (1.05–2.06) 1.55 (1.11–2.17)
Current smoking (yes vs. no) 2.25 (1.22–4.15) 2.25 (1.23–4.14)
Year 1 IMT 1.96 (0.78–4.88) 2.24 (0.89–5.64)
ROC AUC 0.779 0.764

*Both models are additionally adjusted for ultrasonography equipment.

†The numerical cut point for high IMT progression from EDIC year 1 to EDIC year 6 was greater than 0.179 mm.

‡Diastolic rather than systolic blood pressure was included because although not significantly associated with high ICA IMT, it was a stronger predictor than systolic blood pressure in our study population.