Baseline Characteristics of the Study Population
A total of 1,312 participants were enrolled in the study, with an average age of 69.34 years (standard deviation 6.91). Table 1 presents the baseline characteristics of the study population. In the dyslipidemia group, levels of hyperuricemia, total protein, globulin, T3, FT3, FT3/FT4, red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets were significantly higher compared to the normal lipid group (P < 0.05). Additionally, the dyslipidemia group exhibited lower albumin/globulin ratios and a statistically significant difference in age compared to the normal lipid group (all P < 0.05).
Table 1
Baseline characteristics of the study population
variable | Total(n = 1312) | dyslipidemia(n = 862) | normal(n = 450) | t/X2 | p |
age | 69.34 ± 6.91 | 68.89 ± 6.85 | 70.20 ± 6.96 | -3.25 | < 0.01 |
BMI | 24.01 ± 3.44 | 24.05 ± 3.25 | 23.95 ± 3.79 | 0.47 | 0.64 |
ALB | 42.84 ± 4.41 | 42.90 ± 4.53 | 42.72 ± 4.15 | 0.70 | 0.48 |
GLB | 29.32 ± 4.45 | 29.66 ± 4.41 | 28.67 ± 4.46 | 3.86 | < 0.001 |
A/G | 1.48 ± 0.21 | 1.47 ± 0.20 | 1.52 ± 0.22 | -3.94 | < 0.0001 |
WBC | 5.93 ± 1.38 | 6.04 ± 1.41 | 5.71 ± 1.28 | 4.20 | < 0.0001 |
RBC | 4.38 ± 0.37 | 4.43 ± 0.36 | 4.30 ± 0.36 | 6.15 | < 0.0001 |
PLT | 220.54 ± 53.60 | 226.32 ± 54.78 | 209.49 ± 49.47 | 5.63 | < 0.0001 |
N | 3.45 ± 1.07 | 3.49 ± 1.10 | 3.37 ± 1.01 | 1.94 | 0.05 |
TP | 70.81 ± 12.26 | 71.45 ± 11.72 | 69.58 ± 13.17 | 2.53 | 0.01 |
CR | 60.46 ± 15.23 | 60.58 ± 16.75 | 60.23 ± 11.80 | 0.44 | 0.66 |
T4 | 116.22 ± 18.10 | 115.69 ± 18.36 | 117.22 ± 17.56 | -1.47 | 0.14 |
T3 | 1.61 ± 0.27 | 1.62 ± 0.27 | 1.58 ± 0.27 | 2.53 | 0.01 |
FT3 | 4.88 ± 0.58 | 4.91 ± 0.57 | 4.81 ± 0.59 | 2.86 | < 0.01 |
FT4 | 11.28 ± 1.64 | 11.25 ± 1.67 | 11.35 ± 1.58 | -1.07 | 0.28 |
TSH | 2.48 ± 1.21 | 2.51 ± 1.25 | 2.42 ± 1.12 | 1.29 | 0.20 |
TFQI | -0.03 ± 0.37 | -0.03 ± 0.38 | -0.03 ± 0.35 | -0.01 | 0.99 |
TSHI | 2.30 ± 0.51 | 2.30 ± 0.52 | 2.30 ± 0.47 | 0.04 | 0.97 |
TT4RI | 27.55 ± 13.30 | 27.80 ± 13.80 | 27.06 ± 12.29 | 1.00 | 0.32 |
FT3/FT4 | 0.44 ± 0.08 | 0.45 ± 0.08 | 0.43 ± 0.08 | 2.87 | < 0.01 |
diabetes | | | | 0.12 | 0.73 |
yes | 209(15.93) | 140(16.24) | 69(15.33) | | |
no | 1103(84.07) | 722(83.76) | 381(84.67) | | |
hypertension | | | | 0.39 | 0.53 |
yes | 572(43.60) | 370(42.92) | 202(44.89) | | |
no | 740(56.40) | 492(57.08) | 248(55.11) | | |
hyperuricemia | | | | 21.05 | < 0.0001 |
yes | 84( 6.40) | 75( 8.70) | 9( 2.00) | | |
no | 1228(93.60) | 787(91.30) | 441(98.00) | | |
For continuous variables, data are expressed as the mean ± SD or median (interquartile range). For categorical variables, data are presented as percentages.Abbreviations:BMI, body mass index;ALB, albumin;GLB, globulin;A/G, albumin-to-globulin ratio;WBC, white blood cells;RBC, red blood cells;PLT, platelet count;N, neutrophil count;TP, total protein;CR, creatinine;T4, thyroxine;T3, triiodothyronine;FT3, free triiodothyronine;FT4, free thyroxine;TSH, thyroid-stimulating hormone;TSH, thyroid-stimulating hormone;TFQI, Thyroid Feedback Quantile-based Index;TSHI, Thyroid-Stimulating Hormone Index;TT4RI, Thyrotroph Thyroxine Resistance Index;FT3/FT4, free triiodothyronine/free thyroxine ratio.
Thyroid Hormone Sensitivity Indices and Dyslipidemia in Elderly Women: A Logistic Regression Analysis
After categorizing the thyroid hormone sensitivity indices into quartiles, logistic regression analysis was performed. The results are as follows:Model 1:Without adjusting for confounding factors, the risk of dyslipidemia in the Q4 group of FT3/FT4 was 1.62 times that of the Q1 group (P < 0.05).Model 2:After adjusting for age, the risk of dyslipidemia in the Q4 group of FT3/FT4 was 1.54 times that of the Q1 group (P < 0.05).Model 3:After adjusting for body mass index, albumin, globulin, and other confounding factors, the risk of dyslipidemia in the Q2 group of TFQI was 0.69 times that of the Q1 group (P < 0.05).(Table 2)
Table 2
Logistic Regression Analysis of thyroid hormone sensitivity indices and Dyslipidemia in Elderly Women
character | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 |
95%CI | P | 95%CI | P | 95%CI | P |
TFQI | | | | | | |
Q1 | 1.00 | | 1.00 | | 1.00 | |
Q2 | 0.72(0.52,1.00) | 0.05 | 0.72(0.52,1.00) | 0.05 | 0.69(0.49,0.97) | 0.03 |
Q3 | 0.8(0.58,1.11) | 0.18 | 0.8(0.58,1.11) | 0.18 | 0.76(0.54,1.07) | 0.12 |
Q4 | 0.89(0.64,1.23) | 0.47 | 0.87(0.63,1.22) | 0.43 | 0.81(0.58,1.14) | 0.23 |
p for trend | | 0.61 | | 0.56 | | 0.31 |
TSHI | | | | | | |
Q1 | 1.00 | | 1.00 | | 1.00 | |
Q2 | 0.84(0.61,1.16) | 0.30 | 0.83(0.60,1.15) | 0.26 | 0.84(0.60,1.18) | 0.32 |
Q3 | 0.81(0.59,1.12) | 0.21 | 0.8(0.58,1.10) | 0.17 | 0.81(0.58,1.14) | 0.23 |
Q4 | 1.09(0.78,1.51) | 0.61 | 1.07(0.77,1.48) | 0.70 | 1.01(0.71,1.43) | 0.96 |
p for trend | | 0.7 | | 0.79 | | 0.97 |
TT4RI | | | | | | |
Q1 | 1.00 | | 1.00 | | 1.00 | |
Q2 | 0.85(0.62,1.17) | 0.32 | 0.84(0.61,1.16) | 0.29 | 0.89(0.63,1.24) | 0.48 |
Q3 | 0.77(0.56,1.06) | 0.10 | 0.75(0.54,1.03) | 0.08 | 0.75(0.54,1.05) | 0.10 |
Q4 | 1.15(0.83,1.61) | 0.40 | 1.13(0.81,1.57) | 0.48 | 1.1(0.78,1.57) | 0.57 |
p for trend | | 0.28 | | 0.35 | | 0.51 |
FT3/FT4 | | | | | | |
Q1 | 1.00 | | 1.00 | | 1.00 | |
Q2 | 1.16(0.84,1.59) | 0.36 | 1.15(0.84,1.58) | 0.40 | 1.03(0.74,1.44) | 0.85 |
Q3 | 1.16(0.84,1.59) | 0.37 | 1.11(0.81,1.53) | 0.51 | 1.08(0.77,1.51) | 0.66 |
Q4 | 1.62(1.17,2.25) | 0.004 | 1.54(1.11,2.14) | 0.01 | 1.4(0.99,1.99) | 0.06 |
p for trend | | 0.004 | | 0.01 | | 0.05 |
Model 1: unadjusted. Model 2: adjusted by age.Model 3: adjusted by age, BMI, ALB, GLB, A/G, WBC, RBC, PLT, N, TP, CR.
Dose-Response Association between Dyslipidemia and Thyroid Hormone Sensitivity Indices in Elderly Women
In elderly women, the Thyroid Feedback Quantile-based Index (TFQI), Thyroid-stimulating hormone Index (TSHI), and Thyrotroph Thyroxine Resistance Index (TT4RI) all exhibited a U-shaped nonlinear dose-response relationship with dyslipidemia in Model 1. This relationship persisted even after adjusting for confounding factors in Models 2 and 3 (P-TFQI, TSHI, TT4RI all < 0.1294, P-Nonlinear < 0.05) (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 4). However, the FT3/FT4 index showed a linear dose-response relationship with dyslipidemia in both the unadjusted model and after adjusting for age (P-FT3/FT4 < 0.05, P-Nonlinear < 0.05). After adjusting for body mass index, albumin, globulin, and other confounding factors, the FT3/FT4 index did not show a dose-response relationship with dyslipidemia (P-FT3/FT4 = 0.1483, P-Nonlinear = 0.0122) (Fig. 5).