Table 3:
Associations between maximum total hydrocarbon (THC) exposure and risk of type 2 diabetes, stratified by body mass index category
| Age adjustmenta | Basic adjustmentb | Full adjustmentc | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overweightd (n = 843) | ||||||||||
| Max THC (ppm)f | n cases/ n total |
RR | 95% CI | CLRg | RR | 95% CI | CLR | RR | 95% CI | CLR |
|
|
|
|
||||||||
| < 0.30 | 5/114 | 1 | 1 | - | ||||||
| 0.30 - 0.99 | 13/268 | 1.06 | (0.39, 2.85) | 7.24 | 0.99 | (0.37, 2.69) | 7.33 | - | - | - |
| 1.00 - 2.99 | 15/258 | 1.34 | (0.51, 3.54) | 6.97 | 1.46 | (0.54, 3.92) | 7.20 | - | - | - |
| ≥ 3.00 | 15/203 | 2.14 | (0.81, 5.61) | 6.89 | 2.11 | (0.78, 5.74) | 7.39 | - | - | - |
| Trend test p-value: 0.03 | Trend test p-value: 0.03 | |||||||||
| Obesee (n = 1149) | ||||||||||
| Max THC (ppm) | ||||||||||
| < 0.30 | 18/160 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| 0.30 - 0.99 | 54/348 | 1.43 | (0.87, 2.35) | 1.43 | 1.37 | (0.84, 2.24) | 1.37 | 1.44 | (0.88, 2.35) | 1.44 |
| 1.00 - 2.99 | 55/351 | 1.32 | (0.81, 2.17) | 1.32 | 1.22 | (0.74, 2.01) | 1.22 | 1.30 | (0.79, 2.14) | 1.30 |
| ≥ 3.00 | 42/290 | 1.33 | (0.80, 2.23) | 1.33 | 1.18 | (0.70, 1.99) | 1.18 | 1.19 | (0.70, 2.01) | 1.19 |
| Trend test p-value: 0.76 | Trend test p-value: 0.82 | Trend test p-value: 0.73 | ||||||||
| Multiplicative interaction p-value | 0.60 | |||||||||
a
Adjusted for age with restricted quadratic splines
b
Adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education
c
Adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, employment status, and health insurance status. Model did not converge for overweight stratum due to insufficient cases.
d
BMI [25 – 29]
e
BMI ≥ 30
f
Maximum total hydrocarbon exposure
g
Confidence limit ratio