Moderation effect of economic status in the association between early life famine exposure and MAFLD in adulthood

Abstract

Background & Aims: The double burden of malnutrition (DBM) in China resulted in high prevalence of diet-related non-communicable diseases. The aim of this study was to analyse the moderation of economic status in the association between early famine exposure and metabolic dysfunction associated with fatty liver disease (MAFLD) in adulthood. Methods: 10 190 participants in the SPECT-China study enrolled from 2014 to 2016 were included in this study. Participants with fetal famine exposure (birth year 1959-1962) or early-childhood famine exposure (birth year 1955-1958) formed the exposure group. The associations with MAFLD were assessed via regression analyses. Results:In men, economic status could not moderate the association between early life famine and MAFLD after adjusting for age, excess alcohol drinking, current smokers, famine severity, waist circumference, diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia (P for interaction = .52). However, in women and in the total population, economic status could moderate the association between early life famine and MAFLD after adjusting for the above confounders (P for interaction = .01). In the total population and in women, early life famine exposure was associated with MAFLD in both low economic status and high economic status. However, in men, early life famine exposure was not associated with MAFLD in low economic status, while in high economic status, early-childhood famine exposure was associated with MAFLD.Conclusions: Economic status could moderate the association between early life famine exposure and MAFLD in total population and in women.

Association Between Uric Acid to HDL Cholesterol Ratio and Diabetic Complications in Men and Postmenopausal Women

“…The detail about sampling process has been described in the previous studies. 31 , 32 Totally, 4937 diabetes patients underwent an examination. Those missing laboratory results (n = 174), premenopausal women (n = 93), questionnaire data (n = 116) and UHR data (n = 3) were excluded.…”