Table 3.

Linear and Logistic Regression Analysis of Insulin Resistance Outcomes Associated With Urinary Phthalate Metabolites

	Model A (n = 356)	Model B (n = 350)	Model C (n = 350)	Model D (n = 350)
Increment, HOMA-IR
Log-transformed LMW Metabolite	+0.03 (−0.04, +0.10)	+0.02 (−0.04, +0.08)	+0.009 (−0.06, +0.07)	+0.01 (−0.05, +0.08)
Log-transformed HMW Metabolite	+0.09 (+0.01, +0.16)a	+0.07 (+0.007, +0.13)a	+0.07 (+0.009, +0.14)a	+0.07 (+0.009, +0.14)a
Log-transformed DEHP Metabolite	+0.07 (−0.003, +0.14)	+0.06 (+0.004, +0.12)a	+0.06 (+0.002, +0.12)a	+0.06 (−0.001, +0.12)
Log-transformed DIDP Metabolite	+0.06 (−0.01, +0.14)	+0.03 (−0.03, +0.01)	+0.04 (+0.03, +0.10)	+0.03 (−0.03, +0.01)
Log-transformed DINP Metabolite	+0.08 (+0.02, +0.13)b	+0.07 (+0.02, +0.12)b	+0.08 (+0.03, +1.12)b	+0.08 (+0.03, +0.13)b
OR, Insulin Resistance
Log-transformed LMW Metabolite	1.18 (0.93, 1.50)	1.30 (0.96, 1.76)	1.28 (0.92, 1.78)	1.28 (0.92, 1.79)
Log-transformed HMW Metabolite	1.47 (1.14, 1.89)b	1.67 (1.23, 2.27)b	1.72 (1.25, 2.36)b	1.71 (1.24, 2.37)b
Log-transformed DEHP Metabolite	1.42 (1.12, 1.80)b	1.68 (1.26, 2.24)c	1.73 (1.28, 2.34)c	1.72 (1.27, 2.34)c
Log-transformed DIDP Metabolite	1.17 (0.91, 1.50)	1.14 (0.84, 1.56)b	1.16 (0.85, 1.60)b	1.16 (0.84, 1.60)
Log-transformed DINP Metabolite	1.24 (1.03, 1.50)a	1.35 (1.08, 1.70)b	1.38 (1.09, 1.75)b	1.39 (1.09, 1.76)b

Ten participants with missing poverty-income data are insulin resistant and these are included in the analysis.

HOMA-IR categorized using cutpoint of 4.39.

Model A controls for urinary creatinine. Model B adds age and BMI category to Model A. Model C adds sex, PIR, serum cotinine, and race/ethnicity to Model B. Model D adds caloric intake and and PA to Model C.

Results using unweighted modeling are presented. See Supplemental Appendix for testing of alternative weighting.

^aP < .05.

^bP < .01.

^cP < .001.