Table 3—

Cox proportional hazards regression analysis of the relationship of baseline tertile of HOMA-IR and MS and risk of CVD in nondiabetic participants in the SHS

ModelRisk ratio95% CI
Model 1*
 HOMA tertile 2 versus tertile 11.140.80–1.61
 HOMA tertile 3 versus tertile 10.850.58–1.23
Model 2
 HOMA tertile 2 versus tertile 11.190.84–1.69
 HOMA tertile 3 versus tertile 10.950.65–1.39
Model 3
 HOMA tertile 2 versus tertile 11.410.97–2.05
 HOMA tertile 3 versus tertile 11.090.69–1.71
Model 4§
 HOMA tertile 2 versus tertile 11.451.01–2.17
 HOMA tertile 3 versus tertile 11.160.73–1.83
Model 5
 HOMA tertile 2 versus tertile 11.410.96–2.08
 HOMA tertile 3 versus tertile 11.090.68–1.75
Model 6
 HOMA tertile 2 versus tertile 11.440.98–2.13
 HOMA tertile 3 versus tertile 11.090.68–1.74
  • *

    * Adjusted for age;

  • adjusted for age and center;

  • adjusted for age, center, sex, BMI, and waist circumference;

  • §

    § adjusted for age, center, sex, BMI, waist circumference, hypertension, fibrinogen, and smoking;

  • adjusted for age, center, sex, BMI, waist circumference, hypertension, fibrinogen, smoking, LDL cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol;

  • adjusted for age, center, sex, BMI, waist circumference, hypertension, fibrinogen, smoking, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and albuminuria.