Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Obesity paradox and mortality in adults with and without incident type 2 diabetes: a matched population-level cohort study
  1. Ellena Badrick1,2,
  2. Matthew Sperrin1,
  3. Iain E Buchan1,
  4. Andrew G Renehan1,2
  1. 1Farr Institute for Health Informatics Research Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  2. 2Division of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  1. Correspondence to Ellena Badrick; ellena.badrick{at}manchester.ac.uk

Abstract

Objective Among adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), several (but not all) studies show that being overweight (body mass index (BMI): 25.0–29.9 kg/m2) or obese I (BMI: 30.0–34.9 kg/m2) near the time of diagnosis, is unexpectedly associated with reduced all-cause mortality compared with normal weight—the obesity paradox. We addressed whether this observation is causal (eg, a true protective effect); due to confounding (including effect modification); or due to selection (‘collider’) bias.

Research design and methods We performed a matched population-level cohort study using primary care records from Salford, UK (1995–2012) in 10 464 patients with incident T2D paired (1:3) with 31 020 individuals who never developed T2D. We estimated HRs for associations of BMI with all-cause mortality using Cox models, stratified by smoking status.

Results Median follow-up was 8.7 years. For never smokers, the hazard of all-cause mortality increased from 25 kg/m2, in a linear manner, with increasing BMI in the T2D cohort (HR per 5 kg/m2: 1.23, ptrend<0.001) and in the non-diabetes cohort (HR per 5 kg/m2: 1.34, ptrend<0.001). In contrast, among ever smokers, BMI-mortality relationships were U-shaped in the T2D and non-diabetes cohorts. Evidence of the obesity paradox in ever smokers, with and without T2D, argued against a selection bias, but supported a contribution of effect modification by smoking (pinteraction=0.009). Results were stable to various sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions In this cohort, the obesity paradox is mainly explained by smoking as an effect modifier. These findings indicate that the obesity paradox does not challenge standard weight management recommendations among T2D patients.

  • Body Mass Index
  • Mortality
  • Methodological Issues
  • Smoking

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors EB performed analysis, data interpretation, and contributed to all sections of the manuscript. AGR conceptualized the paper and contributed to all sections of the manuscript. MS contributed to statistical interpretation and all sections of the paper. IEB contributed to all aspects of interpretation and all sections of the paper.

  • Funding This work was supported by European Foundation for the Study of Diabetes. Funding for EB is from the Medical Research Council grant number MR/K006665/1.

  • Competing interests AGR has received lecture honoraria from Merck Serona and Janssen-Cilag, and independent research funding from Novo Nordisk. IB has received honoraria from Merck and GlaxoSmithKline. Other authors have no conflicts to declare.

  • Ethics approval 11/EM/0337 NREC committee East Midlands- Nottingham 1, UK.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement No additional data are available.