Table 3.

Comparison of crude and adjusted inflammatory markers between FH and non-FH participants.

Parameter		Comparing non-FH, possible, and definite and probable group		Comparing FH and non-FH
		β (95% CI)	p value	β (95% CI)	p value
NLr	Model 1	0.05 (-0.025, 0.125)	0.195	0.07 (-0.04, 0.18)	0.196
	Model 2	0.05 (-0.034, 0.128)	0.253	0.06 (-0.06, 0.17)	0.337
	Model 3	-0.02 (-0.091, 0.052)	0.596	-0.05 (-0.15, 0.05)	0.377
	Model 4	-0.01 (-0.09, 0.08)	0.902	-0.03 (-0.14, 0.08)	0.551
PLr	Model 1	0.21 (0.105, 0.311)	<0.001	0.23 (0.08, 0.38)	0.003
	Model 2	0.18 (0.069, 0.299)	0.002	0.19 (0.02, 0.36)	0.026
	Model 3	0.07 (0.018, 0.118)	0.007	0.08 (0.01, 0.15)	0.032
	Model 4	0.06 (0.01, 0.12)	0.029	0.07 (-0.01, 0.14)	0.013
RPr	Model 1	-0.001 (-0.002, 0.001)	0.302	-0.001 (-0.003, 0.001)	0.212
	Model 2	-0.001 (-0.002, 0.0001)	0.096	-0.002 (-0.004, 0.000)	0.052
	Model 3	0.001 (-0.001, 0.002)	0.478	0.0001 (-0.002, 0.002)	0.948
	Model 4	0.002 (-0.0002, 0.004)	0.079	0.001 (-0.001, 0.004)	0.431
WBC∗103	Model 1	-0.17 (-0.44, 0.10)	0.216	-0.26 (-0.67, 0.14)	0.196
	Model 2	-0.14 (-0.44, 0.16)	0.353	-0.26 (-0.70, 0.18)	0.252
	Model 3	-0.34 (-0.93, 0.25)	0.259	-0.45 (-1.29, 0.39)	0.291
	Model 4	-0.27 (-0.95, 0.41)	0.431	-0.36 (-1.26, 0.54)	0.437
PDW	Model 1	0.08 (-0.06, 0.23)	0.263	0.18 (-0.03, 0.39)	0.085
	Model 2	0.05 (-0.09, 0.20)	0.492	0.12 (-0.10, 0.34)	0.291
	Model 3	0.01 (-0.23, 0.25)	0.940	0.04 (-0.29, 0.38)	0.808
	Model 4	0.01 (-0.27, 0.28)	0.962	0.05 (-0.32, 0.41)	0.807

Model 1: crude effect; Model 2: adjust for age, BMI, and smoking statues; Model 3: additionally, adjusted for antilipid drug, aspirin consumption, history of CVD, and history of diabetes; Model 4: additionally, adjusted for total cholesterol. Data are shown as β (95% CI). Linear random intercept model was used.