Genetic Risk, Lifestyle Factors, and Type 2 Diabetes among 550,000 Chinese Adults: Results from Two Independent Asian Cohorts
Haoxin Li,Chiea-Chuen Khor,Junning Fan,Jun Lv,Canqing Yu,Yu Guo,Zheng Bian,Ling Yang,Iona Y. Millwood,Robin G. Walters,Yiping Chen,Jian-Min Yuan,Yan Yang,Chen Hu,Junshi Chen,Zhengming Chen,Woon-Puay Koh,Tao Huang,Liming Li,China Kadoorie Biobank Collaborativ Group
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3288894
2018-01-01
SSRN Electronic Journal
Abstract:Background: Evidence from Caucasians showed that both genetic and lifestyle factors play important roles in the development of type 2 diabetes. However, the interaction between the genetic susceptibility and lifestyle factors to type 2 diabetes among Chinese remains unknown. Methods: We defined lifestyle score including body mass index, drinking, smoking, physical activities and diets in 461,030 participants from the China Kadoorie Biobank and 38,434 participants from the Singapore Chinese Health Study. Genetic risk score was calculated based on T2D loci in two cohorts. Cox proportional-hazard model was used to estimate the interaction between genetic and lifestyle factors on risk of incident T2D. Findings: The most unfavorable lifestyle was significantly associated with a higher risk of incident events (HR, 3*32; 95%CI, 3*08 to 3*58) than the most favorable lifestyle regardless of genetic risk. The risk of incident events was 90% higher among participants at the highest genetic risk than those at the lowest genetic risk (95% CI, 1*74 to 2*08). The standardized 10-year incidence at high genetic risk was 7*11% among those with unfavorable lifestyle, and 1*43% among those with low genetic risk and favorable lifestyle. However, there was no evidence of a statistically significant interaction between genetic risk and lifestyle factors. Interpretation: Our findings provide replicable evidence to show that unfavorable lifestyle and genetic factors were independently associated with increased risk of incident type 2 diabetes. Funding Statement: (UK Wellcome Trust and National Natural Science Foundation of China.) This work was supported by grants (2016YFC0900500, 2016YFC0900501, 2016YFC0900504) from the National Key R&D Program of China. The CKB baseline survey and the first re-survey were supported by a grant from the Kadoorie Charitable Foundation in Hong Kong. The long-term follow-up is supported by grants from the UK Wellcome Trust (202922/Z/16/Z, 088158/Z/09/Z, 104085/Z/14/Z), National Natural Science Foundation of China (81390540, 81390544, 81390541), and Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology (2011BAI09B01).The Singapore Chinese Health Study was supported by grants from the National Medical Research Council, Singapore (NMRC/CIRG/1456/2016), and the National Institutes of Health (R01 CA144034 and UM1 CA182876). W-P Koh was supported by National Medical Research Council, Singapore (NMRC/CSA/0055/2013).Declaration of Interests: The authors report: "No conflicts of interest."Ethics Approval Statement: The Ethical Review Committee of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Beijing, China) and the Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee, University of Oxford (UK) approved the study.