Table 4.

Summary of the results of the adjusted logistic regression models assessing the association between OSA clinical subtypes and CMD

Prevalent	Pairwise comparison	Prevalent (OR [95% CI])	p Value
Type 2 diabetes	ES vs. ModS	2.01 (1.44, 2.81)	.000
	ModSwDS vs. ModS	1.27 (0.83, 1.95)	.271
	ModS vs. MinS	1.8 (0.99, 3.28)	.055
	ES vs. ModSwDS	1.58 (1.00, 2.51)	.052
	ES vs. MinS	3.62 (1.94, 6.75)	.000
	ModSwDS vs. MinS	2.29 (1.18, 4.43)	.014
Hyperlipidemia	ES vs. ModS	1.47 (1.13, 1.90)	.004
	ModSwDS vs. ModS	0.89 (0.63, 1.26)	.517
	ModS vs. MinS	2.11 (1.38, 3.22)	.001
	ES vs. ModSwDS	1.65 (1.12, 2.42)	.011
	ES vs. MinS	3.09 (1.96, 4.87)	.000
	ModSwDS vs. MinS	1.88 (1.14, 3.08)	.013
Hypertension	ES vs. ModS	1.29 (0.98, 1.70)	.071
	ModSwDS vs. ModS	0.79 (0.55, 1.13)	.197
	ModS vs. MinS	1.97 (1.30, 2.97)	.001
	ES vs. ModSwDS	1.63 (1.09, 2.45)	.018
	ES vs. MinS	2.53 (1.61, 3.97)	.000
	ModSwDS vs. MinS	1.55 (0.95, 2.53)	.080
CHD	ES vs. ModS	2.13 (1.51, 3.00)	.000
	ModSwDS vs. ModS	0.94 (0.60, 1.47)	.793
	ModS vs. MinS	2.34 (1.24, 4.42)	.009
	ES vs. ModSwDS	2.26 (1.39, 3.66)	.001
	ES vs. MinS	4.98 (2.57, 9.63)	.000
	ModSwDS vs. MinS	2.20 (1.09, 4.45)	.027
HF	ES vs. ModS	0.72 (0.37, 1.40)	.335
	ModSwDS vs. ModS	2.77 (1.50, 5.12)	.001
	ModS vs. MinS	0.57 (0.27, 1.22)	.148
	ModSwDS vs. ES	3.84 (1.78, 8.28)	.001
	ES vs. MinS	0.41 (0.17, 1.00)	.050
	ModSwDS vs. MinS	1.58 (0.70, 3.56)	.268

Note: According to the outcome, logistic regression model adjusted for age, sex, BMI. Bold p‐value means that there are statistical significances p < .05.

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; CHD, coronary heart disease; CMD, cardiovascular and metabolic diseases; ES, excessively sleepy; HF, heart failure; MinS, minimally symptomatic; ModS, moderately sleepy; ModSwDS, moderately sleepy with disturbed sleepy; OR, odds ratio; OSA, obstructive sleep apnea.