Skip to main content
Download PDF

The non-linear link between remnant cholesterol and diabetic retinopathy: a cross-sectional study in patients with type 2 diabetic mellitus

BMC Endocrine Disorders volume 22, Article number: 326 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

Research on residual cholesterol (RC) and diabetic retinopathy (DR) remains limited. As a result, the current study was designed to investigate the relationship between RC and DR in patients with type 2 diabetic mellitus (T2DM).

Methods

This cross-sectional study consecutively and non-selectively collected a total of 1964 type 2 diabetic mellitus patients in two hospitals in Taiwan from April 2002 to November 2004. A binary logistic regression model was then used to assess the independent relationship between RC level and DR and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). A generalized additive model (GAM) and smooth curve fitting were used to investigate the actual shape of the curve between them. It was stated that the data had been uploaded to the website:https://journals.plos.org/plosone.

Results

The average age of the participants was 64.10+/− 11.32 years old, with 42.92% being male. The prevalence of DR and PDR was 35.13 and 18.13%, respectively. The mean RC level was 30.57 ± 14.60 mg/dL. We found no significant association between RC and DR (OR = 1.001; 95% CI 0.991, 1.011) or PDR (OR = 1.008; 95% CI 0.995, 1.021) based on a fully adjusted logistic regression model. Results remained robust across a series of sensitivity analyses. However, a non-linear relationship was detected between RC and DR. Using a two-piece logistic regression model and a recursive algorithm, we found an inflection point of RC was 13.0 mg/dL. A 1-unit increase in the RC level was associated with 19.4% greater adjusted odds of DR (OR = 1.194; 95% CI 1.070, 1.333) when RC < 13.0 mg/dL. There was also a non-linear relationship between RC and PDR, and the inflection point of the RC was 39.0 mg/dL. When RC < 39.0 mg/dL, a 1-unit increase in the RC level was associated with 2.1% greater adjusted odds of PDR (OR = 1.021; 95% CI 1.004, 1.038).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates a non-linear relationship between RC and DR or PDR in type 2 diabetic mellitus patients. Our findings provide new insights into advancing research on the link between RC and DR or PDR.

Peer Review reports

Background

The metabolic syndrome has been linked to retinopathy and diabetic retinopathy (DR) potentiation [1]. Lipids are risk factors for macrovascular disease. According to some recent studies, conventional serum lipid levels such as total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) were not significantly associated with DR [2, 3]. Remnant cholesterol (RC) is the cholesterol content of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, which are very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) and intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL) in the fasting state and the non-fasting state chylomicron remnants [4]. Previous research has shown that RC is the primary factor mediating the residual risk of cardiovascular events, and that it is also independently associated with atherosclerosis [5,6,7]. Researchers have begun investigating the link between RC and diabetic retinopathy in recent years. A Chinese cross-sectional study including 456 patients showed that a high RC level is associated with DR in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) [2]. Another study found that RC could predict diabetic nephropathy and retinopathy progression in type 1 diabetes [8]. However, research on the relationship between RC and DR in type 2 diabetes patients is still limited. No studies have simultaneously explored RC’s association with DR and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) in T2DM patients. In addition, the existence of a linear or non-linear relationship between RC and DR still needs to be further explored. Therefore, we conducted a cross-sectional study investigating the relationship between RC and diabetic retinopathy in T2DM patients.

Methods

Study design

This study used a cross-sectional design. The target-independent variable was RC. The dependent variable was diabetic retinopathy (dichotomous variable: 1 = DR, 0 = non-DR) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (dichotomous variable: 1 = PDR, 0 = NPDR).

Data source

We downloaded the raw data freely from (https://journals.plos.org/plosone), provided by Chen et al.. From: Abnormally Low or High Ankle-Brachial Index Is Associated with Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy in Type 2 Diabetic Mellitus Patients. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134718. This is an open-access article published in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution License, which enables unlimited use, distribution, and reproduction in any form, as long as the original author and source are acknowledged [9]. Here, we would like to thank the authors for providing the data.

Study population

All patients with T2DM who visited the diabetic clinic in the Internal Medicine outpatient departments of two hospitals in southern Taiwan between April 2002 and November 2004 were included in the study. The original researchers gathered the consecutive cases in a non-selective manner. To ensure participants’ privacy, the original researchers encoded their identity information with non-traceable codes. The data came from the hospital’s electronic medical record system, including physical medical, medication, laboratory, and imaging data. This research was conducted under the approval of the institutional review board of the Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital (No. KMUHIRB-E-20150029). All participants have given informed consent to take part in the study. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations by including a statement in the Declarations section [9].

Individuals were excluded from the original study if they met any of the following criteria [9]: (1) patients with type 1 DM; (2) patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 15 ml/min/1.73m2 or under dialysis; (3) patients who received a kidney transplant. Finally, 2001 patients were involved in the original research. Our research further excluded participants with missing values of RC. To reduce interference, we excluded outliers in RC, which were not included in the range of the means ± three standard deviations (SD) [10]. The final analysis included 1964 subjects (843 men and 1121 women) in the present study (see the flowchart for details in Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of study participants. Figure 1 showed the inclusion of patients. 2001 patients were assessed for eligibility in the original study. We excluded patients with missing values of RC (n = 13) and RC (n = 24) outliers. The final analysis included 1964 subjects in the present study

Full size image

Variables

Remnant cholesterol

The information on RC was recorded as a continuous variable. The detailed process of measuring RC was described as follows: RC was calculated as non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-c) – LDL-c [11], where non-HDL-c = TC – HDL-c [12].

Diabetic Retinopathy

Our interesting dependent variable was diabetic retinopathy (dichotomous variable: 1 = DR, 0 = non-DR) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (dichotomous variable: 1 = PDR, 0 = non-PDR). DR was assessed by experienced ophthalmologists while the patient’s pupils were dilated. Fluorescein angiography was performed if necessary. DR was classified as non-DR, NPDR, and PDR stages [13].

Covariates

The covariates involved in this study were selected based on the original study, our clinical experience, and other studies on risk factors for DR. Based on the above principles; thus, the following variables were used as covariates: (1) continuous variables: body mass index (BMI), age, diastolic blood pressure (DBP), eGFR, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), systolic blood pressure (SBP), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and TG; (2) categorical variables: sex, history of coronary artery disease and cerebrovascular disease, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and/or angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) use, β-blocker use, diuretic use, calcium channel blocker (CCB) use, and microalbuminuria.

The BMI was calculated as the ratio of weight divided by the square of height. An autoanalyzer measured laboratory data from fasting blood samples [14]. eGFR was calculated using the 4-variable equation in the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study [15]. Urine albumin and creatinine were measured on a spot urine sample. Microalbuminuria was defined as the ratio of urine albumin to creatinine of ≥30 mg/gm [9].

Statistical analysis

We stratified the participants by quartiles of the RC level. Characteristics of patients were expressed as mean (standard deviation) (normal distribution) or median (range) (non-normal distribution) for continuous variables, and as percentages for categorical variables. We used the One-Way ANOVA test (normal distribution), χ2 (categorical variables), or Kruskal-Whallis H test (skewed distribution) to test for differences among different RC groups.

To explore the link between RC and DR or PDR, we constructed three distinct models using a logistic regression model, including a non-adjusted model (Crude model: no covariates were adjusted), minimally-adjusted model (Model I: only sociodemographic variables and treatment situation were adjusted, including age, SBP, sex, DBP, BMI, history of coronary artery disease and cerebrovascular disease, β-blocker use, ACEI and/or ARB use, diuretic use, and CCB use) and fully-adjusted model (covariates presented in Table 1 were adjusted, including age, SBP, sex, DBP, BMI, history of coronary artery disease and cerebrovascular disease, β-blocker use, ACEI and/or ARB use, diuretic use, CCB use, FPG, HbA1c, eGFR, TG, and microalbuminuria). Effect sizes (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were recorded. We adjusted them when the covariances were added to the model and the OR changed by 10% or greater [16].

Table 1 The baseline characteristics of participants
Full size table

Since methods based on binary logistic regression models were often suspected of being unable to handle non-linear models, therefore, non-linearity between RC and diabetic retinopathy was addressed using the Generalized additive model and the smooth curve fitting (penalized spline method). If a non-linearity was found, we first calculated the inflection point using a recursive algorithm. We then built a two-piece logistic regression model on either side of the inflection point. The best-fitting model was determined based on the p-value of the log of the likelihood ratio [17].

The number of participants with missing data of HbA1c, FPG, Scr, eGFR, β-blocker use, ACEI and/or ARB use, diuretic use, and CCB use was 4(0.20%), 2(0.10%), 4(0.20%), 4(0.20%), 7(0.36%), 7(0.36%),7(0.36%), and 7(0.36%), respectively. Multiple imputations were used to handle the missing data of covariants [18]. The imputation model included age, SBP, BMI, DBP, sex, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, β-blocker use, ACEI and/or ARB use, diuretic use, CCB use, FPG, HbA1c, Scr, eGFR, TG, and microalbuminuria. Missing data analysis procedures use missing-at-random (MAR) assumptions [19].

To test the robustness of our results, we performed a series of sensitivity analyses. According to the quartile, we converted RC into a categorical variable. We calculated the P for the trend to verify the results for RC as the continuous variable and to examine the possibility of non-linearity. Besides, due to the limitation of the generalized linear model in addressing non-linearity, we performed a GAM model to adjust for covariates in model III [17]. Additionally, we explored the potential for unmeasured confounding between RC and the risk of DR by calculating E-values [20].

All the analyses were performed with the statistical software packages R (http://www.R-project.org, The R Foundation) and EmpowerStats (http://www. empowerstats.com, X&Y Solutions, Inc., Boston, MA). P values less than 0.05 (two-sided) were considered statistically significant.

Results

Characteristics of participants

Table 1 provided the demographic and clinical characteristics of participants included in the study. The final analysis included 1964 participants, 42.92% of whom were male and had a mean age of 64.10 11.32 years. The prevalence of DR and PDR was 35.13 and 18.13%, respectively. And the mean RC was 30.57 ± 14.60 mg/dL. No statistical difference was found in the characteristics in terms of age, pulse pressure (PP), Scr, and coronary artery disease in different groups of RC (quartile) (all P values > 0.05). When we set the Q1 (RC < 20.0 mg/dL) group as a reference, the higher value or proportion of SBP, BMI, DBP, FPG, LDL-c, HbA1c, TC, TG, non-HDL, RC, males, microalbuminuria, cerebrovascular disease, β-blocker use, ACEI and/or ARB use, diuretic use, and CCB use were observed were detected in the Q4 (RC ≥ 38.0 mg/dL) group, while the lower level of eGFR and HDL-c were observed in the Q4 group.

Figure 2 showed the distribution of RC levels. It presented a normal distribution from 1.0 to 93.0 mg/dL, with a mean value of 30.57 mg/dL. Patients were divided into three groups based on their diabetic retinopathy status (non-DR, nonPDR, and PDR) (Table S1). The RC levels in the three groups were shown in Fig. S1. The results showed that there were no statistically significant differences in the distribution levels of RC in the three groups (P = 0.6665).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Distribution of RC. Figure 2. It presented a normal distribution of RC in the range from 1 to 93 mg/dL, with a mean of 30.57 mg/dL

Full size image

The prevalence rate of DR and PDR

Table S2 revealed that a total of 690 participants had DR. The total prevalence rate of all participants was 35.13% (33.02-37.25%). Specifically, the prevalence rates of the four RC groups were 30.37% (26.04-34.69%), 38.27% (34.13-42.41%), 36.49% (32.20-40.79%), and 34.65% (30.49-38.80%), respectively.

Table S2 also revealed that 356 participants had PDR in total. The total prevalence rate of all participants was 18.13% (16.42-19.83%). Specifically, the prevalence rates of the four RC groups were 14.84% (11.50-18.18%), 17.45% (14.22-20.68%), 20.00% (16.43-23.57%), and 19.88% (16.40-23.36%), respectively.

The results of univariate analyses using the binary logistic regression model

The univariate analyses showed DR had nothing to do with gender, DBP, BMI, TC, FPG, TG, LDL-c, RC, non-HDL-c, β-blocker use (all P > 0.05), but positively related to age, HbA1c, SBP, Scr, PP, microalbuminuria, history of coronary artery disease and cerebrovascular disease, ACEI and/or ARB use, diuretic use, CCB use, and negatively related to HDL-c, eGFR (all P < 0.05; Table S3).

The results also showed that age, gender, BMI, DBP, FPG, TC, TG, LDL-c, HDL-c, non-HDL-c, RC, coronary artery disease, and β-blocker use were not related to PDR (All P-values> 0.05), but SBP, PP, HbA1c, Scr, microalbuminuria, cerebrovascular disease, ACEI and/or ARB use, diuretic use, and calcium channel blocker use were positively associated with PDR, and eGFR were negatively connected with PDR (all P < 0.05; Table S3).

The results of multivariate analyses using the binary logistic regression model

We found no significant association between RC and DR in the crude model, model I, and model II (Table 2). The trend of ORs and 95% CI were robust irrespective of the type of covariates adjusted (Crude model: OR = 1.001; 95% CI: 0.995-1.008, the model I: OR = 1.000; 95% CI: 0.993-1.006, model II: OR = 1.001; 95% CI: 0.991-1.011).

Table 2 Relationship between RC and DR or PDR in different models
Full size table

We also found no significant relationship between RC and PDR in the crude model, the model I, and model II (Table 2). The trend of ORs and 95% CI were also robust irrespective of the type of covariates adjusted (Crude model: OR = 1.003; 95% CI: 0.996-1.011, the model I: OR = 1.002; 95% CI: 0.993-1.010, model II: OR = 1.009; 95% CI: 0.997-1.022).

Sensitivity analysis

A series of sensitivity analyses were performed to verify our findings’ robustness. We converted RC from a continuous variable to a categorical variable (according to quartile) and then put the categorical-transformed RC back into the model. The results showed that after RC was transformed into a categorical variable, the trend of the effect sizes in different groups was non-equidistant, which indicated that there might be a non-linear relationship between RC and DR or PDR (Table 2).

In addition, we used a GAM to insert the continuity covariate into the equation as a curve. Model III showed this generally remained consistent with the fully adjusted model (OR for DR = 0.999, 95%CI: 0.989-1.010; OR for PDR = 1.008, 95%CI: 0.995-1.021) (Table 2). Besides, we generated an E-value to assess the sensitivity to unmeasured confounding. The E-values of OR for DR and PDR were 1.02 and 1.07, respectively. The E-value was greater than the relative risk of unmeasured confounders and DR or PDR, suggesting unmeasured or unknown confounders had little effect on the relationship between RC and diabetic retinopathy risk.

The non-linearity addressing by the generalized additive model

Through the GAM and smooth curve fitting, we observed that the association between RC and DR was non-linear (Fig. 3). We fit the data using a standard binary logistic regression model and determine the best fit model using a log-likelihood ratio test (Table 3). In our study, the P for the log-likelihood ratio test was < 0.001. Therefore, we used a two-piecewise logistic regression model to fit the link between the RC and DR. By recursive algorithm, we first obtained the inflection point of RC was 19.0 mg/dL and then calculated the OR and the CI on the left and right of the inflection point. On the left side of the inflection point, the OR and 95%CI were 1.194, (1.070, 1.333), respectively. On the right side of the inflection point, the OR and 95%CI were 0.995, (0.984, 1.006), respectively.

Fig. 3
figure 3

The non-linear relationship between RC and the prevalence of DR. Figure 3. We used a generalized additive model and smooth curve fitting to evaluate the relationship between RC and the risk of DR. The result showed that the relationship between RC and DR was non-linear after adjusting for age, sex, BMI, SBP, DBP, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, β-blocker use, ACEI and/or ARB use, diuretic use, calcium channel blocker use, FPG, HbA1c, eGFR, TG, and microalbuminuria

Full size image
Table 3 The result of the two-piecewise logistic regression model for DR
Full size table

We also used the GAM and smooth curve fitting and found that the association between RC and PDR was non-linear (Fig. 4). The inflection point of RC was 39.0 mg/dL. On the left side of the inflection point, the OR and 95%CI were 1.021, (1.004, 1.038), respectively. On the right side of the inflection point, the OR and 95%CI were 0.988, (0.966, 1.012), respectively (Table 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

The non-linear relationship between RC and the prevalence of PDR. Figure 4. We used a generalized additive model and smooth curve fitting to evaluate the relationship between RC and the risk of PDR. The result showed that the relationship between RC and DR was also non-linear after adjusting for age, sex, BMI, SBP, DBP, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, β-blocker use, ACEI and/or ARB use, diuretic use, calcium channel blocker use, FPG, HbA1c, eGFR, TG, and microalbuminuria

Full size image
Table 4 The result of the two-piecewise logistic regression model for PDR
Full size table

Discussion

In a cross-sectional study including 456 Chinese with type 2 diabetes, Shan et al. found that RC levels were positively associated with DR risk [2]. At the same time, the prevalence of DR in their study was 47.59%, whereas it was 35.13% in our study [2]. The patients included in the study by Shan et al. had high levels or proportions of males, HbA1c, FPG, SBP, DBP, TC, and TG, but low levels of HDL-c, as determined by an analysis of their demographic information. Previous studies have reported that these indicators are associated with the risk of developing diabetic retinopathy [3, 21,22,23]. Consequently, it was accepted that individuals in the current study had a lower prevalence of DR than those in the study by Shan et al.

Furthermore, in contrast to the study by Shan et al .[2], our multivariate logistic regression study did not identify a significant connection between RC and DR or PDR in type 2 diabetic patients. The conflicting results may have been caused by the following: (1) Differences in FPG, blood pressure, blood lipids, and other indicators in the study population (2) Compared with our research, their study did not consider the effect of gender, eGFR, HbA1c, history of coronary artery disease, history of cerebrovascular disease on the relationship between RC and DR when adjusting confounding variables. In addition, these characteristics were addressed in relation to the risk of DR in prior research [21, 22, 24,25,26]. (3) Differences in sample size may also influence the statistical significance of the association between RC and DR.

Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, our study observed a non-linear relationship between RC and DR or PDR for the first time. We found a non-linear relation between RC and DR. The inflection point of RC was 13.0 mg/dL. It showed that when RC was below 13.0 mg/dL, a 1 unit increase in the RC levels was associated with a 19.4% increase in adjusted OR for the risk of DR (OR = 1.194, 95%CI: 1.070-1.333). However, when RC > 13.0 mg/dL, a 1 unit increase in the RC level was not associated with the adjusted OR of DR risk (OR = 0.995, 95%CI: 0.984-1.006). Similarly, we also found a non-linear relation between RC and PDR risk, and the inflection point was 39.0 mg/dL. The relationship between RC and PDR on the left and right sides of the inflection point is similar to that between RC and DR. The reason for the difference in the relationship between RC and DR or PDR on both sides of the inflection point might be that other variables also influenced diabetic retinopathy. It could be seen from Table S4 and Table S5 that compared with RC < 13.0 or 39.0 mg/dL, patients with RC ≥ 13.0 or 39.0 mg/dL generally have a higher level or proportion of BMI, BP, FPG, HbA1c, Scr, males, and microalbuminuria. In contrast, participants generally had lower HDL-c and eGFR levels in the RC ≥13.0 or 39.0 mg/dL group. However, the abnormality of the above indicators was closely related to the progress of DR [3, 21,22,23, 27,28,29]. When RC was above 13.0 or 39.0 mg/dL, RC had a relatively weak effect on DR progression due to the presence of these DR risk factors. On the contrary, when RC was less than 13.0 or 39.0 mg/dL, the level of the risk factors for DR progressions, such as BMI, BP, HbA1c, FPG, and Scr was lower. The impact on DR was weakened, at this time, the effect of RC was relatively enhanced. Our findings provide an essential rationale for preventing DR and PDR by intervening in the RC level in the clinic. In particular, the RC level should be controlled below 13.0 or 39.0 mg/dL. Because when the RC level is lower than 13.0 or 39.0 mg/dL, the risk of DR or PDR might decrease significantly. The inflection point provides evidence for RC management for the first time.

Our study has some strengths, and we listed them as follows. (1) A strength of our research is that the total sample size was relatively large. (2) Information on covariates is complete and rarely missing. This study explores non-linearity and explains them further. This is a very significant improvement over the previous study. (3) We used multiple imputations to handle missing data in this study. Multiple imputations can maximize statistical power and minimize potential bias caused by covariate information missing. (4) In this study, we ensured the robustness of the results through a series of sensitivity analyses (conversion of target-independent variable form, using a GAM model, calculating E-values to explore the potential for unmeasured confounding). This makes our results more reliable.

Our research has the following shortcomings and needs attention: (1) The design of this study is cross-sectional, so we cannot get the exact causal relationship because of the nature of the cross-sectional design. (2) We only explored the relationship between RC and DR formation and progression in patients with T2DM. Further research is needed on the relationship between the two in patients with type 1 diabetes. (3) As with all observational studies, although known potential confounders such as FPG, TG, and BMI were controlled, there may still be uncontrolled or unmeasured confounders. However, we calculated E-value to quantify the potential impact of unmeasured confounders and found that unmeasured confounders were unlikely to explain the results. (4) As this is a secondary analysis, the raw data did not provide sufficient information on the study population. In the future, we can consider designing our studies or collaborating with other researchers to collect sufficient information on the study population.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates a non-linear relationship between RC and DR or PDR in patients with T2DM. When the RC level is lower than 13.0 or 39.0 mg/dL, there is a significant positive association with DR and PDR. This result is expected to provide a reference for clinicians to control the RC level. From a treatment perspective, it makes sense to reduce the RC level below the inflection point. Reducing the RC level can significantly reduce DR and PDR risk when the RC level is below the inflection point.

Availability of data and materials

Data can be downloaded from (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134718). Under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited [9].

Abbreviations

RC:

Remnant cholesterol

HDL-c:

High-density lipoprotein cholesterol

HbA1c:

Hemoglobin A1c

eGFR:

Estimated glomerular filtration rate

BMI:

Body mass index

Scr:

Serum creatinine

FPG:

Fasting plasma glucose

LDL-c:

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol

TC:

Total cholesterol

TG:

Triglyceride

SBP:

Systolic blood pressure

DBP:

Diastolic blood pressure

PP:

Pulse pressure

non-HDL:

Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol

ACEI:

angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor

ARB:

angiotensin II receptor blocker

DR:

Diabetic retinopathy

PDR:

Proliferative diabetic retinopathy

OR:

odds ratio

Ref:

Reference

CI:

Confidence intervals

T2DM:

Type 2 diabetes mellitus

DM:

Diabetes mellitus

GAM:

Generalized additive model

IDL:

Intermediate-density lipoprotein

VLDL:

Very-low-density lipoprotein

MDRD:

Modification of diet in renal disease

MAR:

Missing-at-random

References

  1. Rao H, Jalali JA, Johnston TP, Koulen P. Emerging Roles of Dyslipidemia and Hyperglycemia in Diabetic Retinopathy: Molecular Mechanisms and Clinical Perspectives. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021;12:620045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Shan Y, Wang Q, Zhang Y, Tong X, Pu S, Xu Y, et al. High remnant cholesterol level is relevant to diabetic retinopathy in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Lipids Health Dis. 2022;21(1):12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sasongko MB, Wong TY, Nguyen TT, Kawasaki R, Jenkins A, Shaw J, et al. Serum apolipoprotein AI and B are stronger biomarkers of diabetic retinopathy than traditional lipids. Diabetes Care. 2011;34(2):474–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jepsen AM, Langsted A, Varbo A, Bang LE, Kamstrup PR, Nordestgaard BG. Increased Remnant Cholesterol Explains Part of Residual Risk of All-Cause Mortality in 5414 Patients with Ischemic Heart Disease. Clin Chem. 2016;62(4):593–604.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Fujioka Y, Ishikawa Y. Remnant lipoproteins as strong key particles to atherogenesis. J Atheroscler Thromb. 2009;16(3):145–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Varbo A, Benn M, Tybjærg-Hansen A, Jørgensen AB, Frikke-Schmidt R, Nordestgaard BG. Remnant cholesterol as a causal risk factor for ischemic heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(4):427–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Mach F, Baigent C, Catapano AL, Koskinas KC, Casula M, Badimon L, et al. 2019 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(1):111–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jansson SF, Dahlström EH, Forsblom C, Sandholm N, Harjutsalo V, Taskinen MR, et al. Remnant cholesterol predicts progression of diabetic nephropathy and retinopathy in type 1 diabetes. J Intern Med. 2021;290(3):632–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chen SC, Hsiao PJ, Huang JC, Lin KD, Hsu WH, Lee YL, et al. Abnormally Low or High Ankle-Brachial Index Is Associated with Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy in Type 2 Diabetic Mellitus Patients. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e134718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhang N, Hu X, Zhang Q, Bai P, Cai M, Zeng TS, et al. Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol: High-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio is an independent risk factor for diabetes mellitus: Results from a population-based cohort study. J DIABETES. 2018;10(9):708–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Nordestgaard BG, Varbo A. Triglycerides and cardiovascular disease. LANCET. 2014;384(9943):626–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen Y, Zhang X, Pan B, Jin X, Yao H, Chen B, et al. A modified formula for calculating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol values. Lipids Health Dis. 2010;9:52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Watkins PJ. Retinopathy. BMJ. 2003;326(7395):924–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Vickery S, Stevens PE, Dalton RN, van Lente F, Lamb EJ. Does the ID-MS traceable MDRD equation work and is it suitable for use with compensated Jaffe and enzymatic creatinine assays? Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2006;21(9):2439–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, Greene T, Rogers N, Roth D. A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130(6):461–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1500–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhu F, Chen C, Zhang Y, Chen S, Huang X, Li J, et al. Elevated blood mercury level has a non-linear association with infertility in U.S. women: Data from the NHANES 2013-2016. Reprod Toxicol. 2020;91:53–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Groenwold RH, White IR, Donders AR, Carpenter JR, Altman DG, Moons KG. Missing covariate data in clinical research: when and when not to use the missing-indicator method for analysis. CMAJ. 2012;184(11):1265–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med. 2011;30(4):377–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Haneuse S, VanderWeele TJ, Arterburn D. Using the E-Value to Assess the Potential Effect of Unmeasured Confounding in Observational Studies. JAMA. 2019;321(6):602–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhang X, Saaddine JB, Chou CF, Cotch MF, Cheng YJ, Geiss LS, et al. Prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in the United States, 2005-2008. JAMA. 2010;304(6):649–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang M, Li L, Chen J, Li B, Zhan Y, Zhang C. Presence of diabetic retinopathy is lower in type 2 diabetic patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(18):e15362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rema M, Srivastava BK, Anitha B, Deepa R, Mohan V. Association of serum lipids with diabetic retinopathy in urban South Indians--the Chennai Urban Rural Epidemiology Study (CURES) Eye Study--2. Diabet Med. 2006;23(9):1029–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhuang X, Cao D, Yang D, Zeng Y, Yu H, Wang J, et al. Association of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular oedema with renal function in southern Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a single-centre observational study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(9):e31194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Romero-Aroca P, Baget-Bernaldiz M, Navarro-Gil R, Moreno-Ribas A, Valls-Mateu A, Sagarra-Alamo R, et al. Glomerular Filtration Rate and/or Ratio of Urine Albumin to Creatinine as Markers for Diabetic Retinopathy: A Ten-Year Follow-Up Study. J Diabetes Res. 2018;2018:5637130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. van Hecke MV, Dekker JM, Stehouwer CD, Polak BC, Fuller JH, Sjolie AK, et al. Diabetic retinopathy is associated with mortality and cardiovascular disease incidence: the EURODIAB prospective complications study. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(6):1383–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Chen YH, Chen HS, Tarng DC. More impact of microalbuminuria on retinopathy than moderately reduced GFR among type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(4):803–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Wu J, Geng J, Liu L, Teng W, Liu L, Chen L. The Relationship between Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate and Diabetic Retinopathy. J Ophthalmol. 2015;2015:326209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Villena JE, Yoshiyama CA, Sánchez JE, Hilario NL, Merin LM. Prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in Peruvian patients with type 2 diabetes: results of a hospital-based retinal telescreening program. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2011;30(5):408–14.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

As this is a secondary analysis, the data and method description are mainly derived from the following research: Chen S-C, Hsiao P-J, Huang J-C, Lin K-D, Hsu W-H, Lee Y-L, et al. (2015) Abnormally Low or High Ankle-Brachial Index Is Associated with Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy in Type 2 Diabetic Mellitus Patients. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0134718. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134718. We are grateful to all the authors of the study.

Funding

This study was supported by the Discipline Construction Ability Enhancement Project of the Shenzhen Municipal Health Commission (SZXJ2017031) and the Shenzhen Science and Technology Innovation Committee (JCYJ20210324133412033).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Wushan Pan and Yong Han contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nephrology, Kaifeng Central Hospital, Kaifeng, 475000, Henan Province, China

    Wushan Pan

  2. Department of Emergency, Shenzhen Second People’s Hospital, Guangdong Province, Shenzhen, 518000, China

    Yong Han

  3. Department of Emergency, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Guangdong Province, Shenzhen, 518000, China

    Yong Han

  4. Department of Nephrology, Shenzhen Second People’s Hospital, Guangdong Province, Shenzhen, 518000, China

    Haofei Hu

  5. Department of Nephrology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Guangdong Province, Shenzhen, 518000, China

    Haofei Hu

  6. Department of Nephrology, Shenzhen Hengsheng Hospital, No.3002 Sungang Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, 518000, Guangdong Province, China

    Yongcheng He

Authors
  1. Wushan Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yong Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Haofei Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yongcheng He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Wushan Pan and Yong Han contributed to the study concept and design, researched and interpreted the data, and drafted the manuscript. Haofei and Yongcheng He are the guarantors of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and took responsibility for the data’s integrity and the accuracy of the data analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Haofei Hu or Yongcheng He.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted under the approval (No. KMUHIRB-E-20150029) of the institutional review board of the Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital. It was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all patients. The original researchers encoded their identity information as non-traceable codes to ensure participants’ privacy and data anonymization.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pan, W., Han, Y., Hu, H. et al. The non-linear link between remnant cholesterol and diabetic retinopathy: a cross-sectional study in patients with type 2 diabetic mellitus. BMC Endocr Disord 22, 326 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-022-01239-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-022-01239-5

Keywords

BMC Endocrine Disorders

ISSN: 1472-6823

Contact us