1 Department of Epidemiology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
2 Department of Medicine, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
3 Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
4 Division of Epidemiology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS.
5 Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
![]() |
ABSTRACT |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
alcohol drinking; cohort studies; diabetes mellitus; non-insulin-dependent; prospective studies
Abbreviations: ARIC, Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities
![]() |
INTRODUCTION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The hypothesized diabetogenic effects of alcohol include its contribution to excess caloric intake and obesity, induction of pancreatitis, disturbance of carbohydrate and glucose metabolism, and impairment of liver function (57
). However, the association between alcohol and diabetes or other diabetes-related physiologic endpoints has been inconsistent in previous small clinical studies (8
16
), animal studies (17
, 18
), and larger cross-sectional epidemiologic studies (5
, 19
24
).
Prospective epidemiologic studies have yielded similarly equivocal results; furthermore, results of these studies suggest a potential difference in the association of alcohol and incident type 2 diabetes between women and men (2532
). The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study offers a unique opportunity to examine the association between alcohol consumption and the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in a large community-based cohort of middle-aged women and men.
![]() |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Exposure assessment
Alcohol consumption was assessed using five questions. The following two questions were used to determine the current drinking status of the persons: "Do you presently drink alcoholic beverages?" and "Have you ever consumed alcoholic beverages?" Persons were classified as lifetime abstainers if they answered "no" to both questions. Persons who answered "no" to the first question and "yes" to the second question were classified as former drinkers. Persons who answered "yes" to both questions were considered current drinkers. Among current drinkers, the following three questions were used to determine the amount and type of alcoholic beverage consumed: "How many glasses of wine do you usually have per week (4-ounce glasses)?"; "How many bottles or cans of beer do you usually have per week (12-ounce bottles or cans)?"; and "How many drinks of hard liquor do you usually have per week (1.5-ounce shots)?" (One ounce = 29.57 ml.) For the primary analyses, ethanol, rather than a specific beverage, was the main independent variable. Weekly ethanol consumption was derived from the responses to the three beverage questions using the following conversion factors: 4 ounces of wine = 10.8 g of ethanol, 12 ounces of beer = 13.2 g of ethanol, and 1.5 ounces of spirits = 15.1 g of ethanol. To reclassify current drinkers by the number of drinks (nonspecific to type of alcohol) consumed per week, we assumed one generic drink to be equal to 12 g of ethanol. Seven consumption groups were created: lifetime abstainers, former drinkers, current drinkers who consume <1 drink/week (reference group), current drinkers who consume 1.17 drinks/week, current drinkers who consume 7.114 drinks/week, current drinkers who consume 14.121 drinks/week, and current drinkers who consume more than 21 drinks/week.
For alcohol-specific analyses, derivation of weekly ethanol consumption from the three beverages was not used (method described in the previous paragraph). Instead, the original number of glasses, bottles, and drinks was used to categorize wine, beer, and spirit consumption, respectively. For each beverage type, persons who identified themselves as current drinkers but reported an average weekly consumption of zero servings of that beverage were used as the reference group.
Information on age, gender, race, family history of diabetes, and education was obtained from home and clinic interviews conducted at the baseline visit. A positive family history of diabetes was defined as having either biologic parent with diabetes. Body mass index (weight (kg)/height (m)2) and waist/hip ratio were determined by the anthropometric measurements taken at the baseline clinic visit. Measurements were made with the participants wearing light-weight, nonconstricting underwear and no shoes. Waist and hip measurements were taken at the level of the umbilicus and the level of maximal protrusion of the gluteal muscles, respectively. Intrareader and interreader correlations between repeated waist/hip ratio measures were 0.94 and 0.91, respectively (34). Physical activity was assessed using a modified interviewer-administered version of the questionnaire developed by Baecke et al. (35
). Results from the questionnaire concerning physical activity were further condensed to a sport-related physical activity index with scores ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating the lowest level of activity and 5 the highest level. Total caloric intake was derived from an interviewer-administered, modified version of the 61-item food frequency questionnaire developed by Willett et al. (36
). Smoking status was categorized into never, former, and current smokers. Hypertension was defined by the presence of any of the following: 1) systolic blood pressure of
140 mmHg, 2) diastolic blood pressure of
90 mmHg, or 3) current use of antihypertensive medication.
Outcome assessment
Diabetes mellitus was defined as the presence of any one of the following: 1) fasting glucose of 7.0 mmol, 2) nonfasting glucose of
11.1 mmol, 3) current use of diabetic medication, or 4) a positive response to the question, "Has a doctor ever told you that you had diabetes (sugar in the blood)?" Persons with diabetes or who had unknown diabetes status at baseline were excluded from the prospective analyses. Persons without diabetes at baseline who met any of the these conditions at visit 2 or visit 3 were considered incident cases of diabetes (n = 239). Persons who met the criteria for diabetes at visit 2 but not at visit 3 were nonetheless considered to have incident type 2 diabetes.
Statistical analysis
All analyses were stratified by gender. The means and frequencies of potential confounders assessed at baseline were calculated for each group of alcohol consumption, and analysis of variance and chi-square analysis were used to assess the statistical significance of the differences across consumption groups. For continuous variables, p values for test for trend among current drinkers were also reported. Incidence rates were calculated for each consumption group with the use of a person-years approach, and a Poisson regression model was fitted to determine if the incidence rates for the seven consumption groups differed significantly. Because the outcome was assessed only at 3-year intervals, the time of follow-up for incident cases was assigned to the midpoints between visits, that is, 1.5 and 4.5 years. For example, persons who were nondiabetic at baseline but became diabetic at visit 3 were considered to have been followed for 4.5 years. Nondiabetic persons at both visit 1 and visit 2 who were lost to follow-up after visit 2 were censored at 3 years after the baseline visit.
The independent association between baseline alcohol consumption and subsequent incident diabetes was examined using logistic regression models. Alcohol consumption was treated both nominally and continuously (for trend among current drinkers). Multiple linear regression analysis was also performed to examine the association between baseline alcohol consumption and fasting glucose levels at visit 2 or visit 3 among persons who did not have diagnosed diabetes by the time of the visit. All statistical analyses were performed using a SAS statistical package (Cary, North Carolina) (37).
![]() |
RESULTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
|
|
|
We tested for effect modification by sex for statistical significance among persons who identified themselves as current drinkers. In the unadjusted model, the interaction term was statistically significant (p = 0.04). Although this interaction was no longer statistically significant in the fully adjusted model (p = 0.08), the divergence of the fully adjusted relative odds of incident diabetes in the higher consumption groups between women and men remained apparent.
Subsidiary analyses
To test the robustness of our results, three subsidiary analyses were conducted. The first set of analyses included further adjustment for fasting serum insulin and glucose levels at baseline because both variables were associated with alcohol consumption at baseline (table 4). Adjustment for the fasting serum insulin level at baseline slightly strengthened the association between alcohol consumption and the risk of diabetes in men (male drinkers had higher insulin levels compared with the reference group at baseline) but slightly weakened the association in women (female drinkers at lower insulin levels compared with the reference group at baseline). In contrast, adjustment for the fasting serum glucose level at baseline weakened the association between alcohol consumption and the risk of diabetes in men but strengthened the association in women. Because the baseline fasting insulin level is hypothesized to be in the causal pathway and the baseline glucose level is part of the outcome, models 2 and 3 of table 4 likely represent overadjusted models.
The second set of analyses examined the association between alcohol consumption at baseline and incident diabetes at visit 2 or at visit 3 separately. This set of analyses was performed to determine if the association between alcohol consumption and diabetes risk was dependent on follow-up time. The increased risk of diabetes for men who consumed >21 drinks/week at baseline was present at both visits 2 and 3; however, neither association was statistically significant at the 0.05 level.
The last set of analyses was conducted using continuous serum glucose at either visit 2 or visit 3 as the outcome among current drinkers who did not have diagnosed diabetes, who were not taking antidiabetic medication at the time of the visit, and who were nondiabetic at the previous visit. The fully adjusted mean fasting glucose levels at either visit 2 or visit 3 were similar among the five consumption groups in women; however, the adjusted mean fasting glucose levels were different among the five consumption groups in men. At visit 2, the mean glucose levels (mg/dl) for the five consumption groups in men were 104.8 (1 drink/week), 104.4 (1.17 drinks/week), 104.3 (7.114 drinks/week), 105.8 (14.121 drinks/week), and 106.5 (>21 drinks/week) (p = 0.02 for overall difference). The corresponding numbers from visit 3 were 100.0, 101.2, 101.2, 101.2, and 102.8 (p = 0.06 for overall difference). At both visits 2 and 3, men who drank >21 drinks/week at baseline had the highest fasting serum glucose level at subsequent visits.
Consumption of specific alcoholic beverages and the risk of type 2 diabetes
To assess whether the discrepancy between women and men might have been explained by differences in alcoholic beverage preference, we characterized the beverage preference of current drinkers. Figure 1 shows the mean percentage of ethanol contributed by specific alcoholic beverages for each consumption group (total alcohol intake) in women and men. In the reference groups (1 drink/week), although all persons identified themselves as current drinkers, only 11 percent of the women and 8 percent of the men reported regular weekly alcohol consumption (the remaining persons in the reference group identified themselves as current alcohol drinkers but reported no regular weekly alcohol consumption), and in those persons who reported regular use of alcohol, wine accounted for 100 percent for ethanol consumed. In general, the contribution to total alcohol intake from wine was roughly two times higher in women than in men, the contribution from beer was about two times higher in men than in women, and the contribution from spirits was similar between women and men.
|
|
![]() |
DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
There are two major limitations to this study. First, our analyses of heavy consumption and alcohol beverage types were limited to men only. This study did not have sufficient power to estimate the relative odds of diabetes at higher levels of alcohol intake in women, specifically consumption of 14 drinks/week. Second, like most previous studies in this field, our assessment of alcohol was likely suboptimal for several reasons. The assessment was done at a single time point and did not evaluate drinking pattern. Participants, especially those in the heavier drinking groups, may have underreported their consumption level because the questions regarding alcohol use were administered by an interviewer.
Nevertheless, this study had several strengths. First, this is the only community-based, prospective study of the association between alcohol and the risk of type 2 diabetes with a sample that included Whites, Blacks, women, and men. Second, the present analyses distinguished among lifetime abstainers, former drinkers, and current drinkers who drink minimally. It has been suggested that persons who are not currently drinking may be abstaining from drinking alcohol because of health reasons, and that the use of such persons as the reference group could potentially lead to an artifactual protective effect of alcohol use (38). Third, to our knowledge, this study is the first study to present a more comprehensive examination of the associations between different alcoholic beverages and the risk of diabetes.
Both the present study and a previous ARIC Study publication by Vitelli et al. (39) reported an inverse cross-sectional relation between the baseline alcohol consumption and the baseline fasting serum insulin level in both men and women, and yet the present study also found a direct cross-sectional association of the baseline alcohol consumption with the baseline fasting serum glucose level and a direct prospective relation with the risk of diabetes during follow-up in men. It is not clear why these contradictory associations exist. One hypothesis for these apparently contradictory results in men is that the inverse association between the baseline alcohol consumption and the baseline fasting serum insulin level could be indicative of the beginning of the deterioration of beta-cell function experienced by pre-diabetic persons rather than insulin sensitivity; hence, a direct association of the baseline alcohol consumption and the baseline fasting serum glucose level and incident diabetes during follow-up was observed.
The divergent results from epidemiologic studies of alcohol consumption and the risk of diabetes are reflected in nonepidemiologic studies, which have also reported both diabetogenic and nondiabetogenic effects of ethanol on physiologic endpoints associated with diabetes. In vitro studies indicate that exposure of beta cells to alcohol is associated with decreased insulin secretion (40, 41
). On the other hand, hepatic oxidation of ethanol results in an increased ratio of reduced nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide to nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, which can lead to impairment in gluconeogenesis (42
). In physiologic studies, acute ethanol ingestion has been shown to improve glucose tolerance in normal subjects and insulin sensitivity in diabetic subjects (11
, 16
); however, acute ethanol administration has been shown to cause a reduction in the glucose disposal rate, cause acute insulin resistance in nondiabetic subjects, and worsen insulin resistance in diabetic patients, while chronic alcohol consumption has also been implicated to induce beta-cell dysfunction (10
, 14
, 15
). Similarly contradictory results arise from animal studies. In rats, acute alcohol administration can attenuate basal and hormone-induced glucose utilization by skeletal muscles while, in obese mice, chronic ethanol consumption can lower blood glucose and insulin (17
, 18
). The exact relation between alcohol and diabetes-related endpoints may depend on the nature of alcohol exposure, that is, acute versus chronic and alcohol administration versus alcohol ingestion.
Since 1965, eight prospective studies have examined the association between alcohol consumption and the risk of type 2 diabetes (25, 26
, 28
32
, 43
, 44
). Five are comparable with the present study, while significant differences in the study methodology and study population exist between the other three studies and the present study. Of these three, two showed no association between alcohol intake and the risk of diabetes in men even at >21 drinks/week (29
, 43
). We believe that two methodological issues could explain the discrepancy between our study and these two studies. First, both previous studies lacked information on potential confounders, such as the waist/hip ratio, education, and hypertension, all of which were significantly associated with both alcohol and diabetes in our study. Second, these studies had data on current drinking status only and so had to combine former drinkers, lifetime abstainers, and occasional drinkers into a single reference group. In the present study, former drinkers and lifetime abstainers had the highest unadjusted risk of diabetes; thus, such misclassification of exposure status may lead to an overestimation of the risk of diabetes in the reference group and produce a bias toward the null. The last of these three studies found a protective association of moderate alcohol among the elderly (44
). Differences in the age distribution of the two populations and, hence, in the inherent risks for developing diabetes and differences in the characterization of alcohol use (moderate use was defined as 0.5<1 ounce/day) may explain the discrepancy with our results.
Of the five studies that were comparable with the present study regarding methodology and population, three studies presented results regarding women (25, 28
, 31
, 32
), and in these studies, either an inverse or no association between alcohol intake and diabetes risk was reported. The Nurses' Health Study demonstrated a significant inverse association between light-to-moderate alcohol consumption, irrespective of beverage type, and the risk of type 2 diabetes (28
, 32
). The remaining two smaller studies showed that increased alcohol intake was not associated with diabetes risk but was strongly associated with a decreased body mass index (25
, 31
). This strong inverse association, as indicated by previous ARIC studies (34
), may account for the lack of association between alcohol and the risk of diabetes. In our study, women with moderate alcohol consumption were not more likely to develop diabetes than were their counterparts who drank occasionally, even after adjustment for body mass index and the waist/hip ratio.
Of the five studies that were comparable with the present study regarding methodology and population, four presented results regarding men (25, 26
, 30
, 31
). The increased risk of diabetes seen in ARIC Study male participants who drank >21 drinks/week is consistent with results reported by two of these studies, the Rancho Bernardo Study and the San Antonio Heart Study (25
, 31
). However, an inverse association was found in the other two studies, the Health Professionals' Follow-up Study and the British Regional Heart Study (26
, 30
). Given the unique nature of the Health Professionals' cohort, it is conceivable that these persons had different beverage preference and drinking patterns from those of ARIC Study men or that they had healthier behaviors, which were not measured and were associated with increased consumption of alcohol. Furthermore, the association between the waist/hip ratio and alcohol consumption, which was positive in the ARIC Study, was unknown in the Health Professionals' Study and therefore was not included in their multivariate analyses. The main difference between the present study and the British Regional Heart Study may lie in the populations studied. The prevalence of coronary heart disease was reported to be 24 percent in the British Regional Heart Study but only about 8 percent in male ARIC Study participants at baseline. Because the lower risk of diabetes seen in moderate drinkers was more apparent and significant only in men with preexisting coronary heart disease versus men without evidence of coronary heart disease in the British Regional Heart Study, one cannot exclude the possibility that the reference group in the British Regional Heart Study (current occasional drinkers) was contaminated with persons with prevalent coronary heart disease who may have been advised to reduce their alcohol consumption.
Several reasons can possibly explain the differences in risk noted between women and men in this study. First, women and men may have differing responses to dietary questionnaires. Previous studies have shown differences between men and women in their attitudes toward alcohol use (45). If women who consumed high amounts of alcohol were more likely to develop diabetes but were also more likely to underreport the amount of alcohol they consumed, then this could result in an apparent protective effect of alcohol on diabetes risk. We have no knowledge of previous studies' using questionnaires similar to ours that indicated that such underreporting occurs; however, it has been reported that the sensitivity of instruments designed to detect problem drinking, such as the CAGE questionnaire (a four-item test with questions on Cutting down, Annoyance at criticism, Guilty feelings, and use of Eye openers), is lower in college women than men (46
). Second, a different beverage preference between women and men may explain some of the observed interaction. Our data showed that the increased diabetes risk in men in the highest alcohol intake group was related to the consumption of spirits. In this study, women were about as likely to consume spirits as men, but women were also more likely to consume wine and less likely to consume beer. Alcoholic beverage preference is associated with demographic and health behavior-related characteristics. Persons who prefer wine are likely to be women, temperate, nonsmokers, better educated, and free of symptoms or risk of illness while persons who prefer spirits are likely to be men, heavier drinkers, less educated, and afflicted with symptoms or risk factors of major illnesses, and persons who prefer beer had intermediate traits (24
). In addition, we demonstrated in our study that wine consumption was statistically associated with healthier behaviors while spirits and beer consumption were not. Therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that the differences in beverage preference may simply represent differences in lifestyles, which we were not able to adequately measure and adjust in our regression model. Third, this difference could simply be a type II error due to the small number of women who drank >14 drinks/week.
The results of the present study support the hypothesis that high alcohol intake (21 drinks/week) predicts type 2 diabetes mellitus among middle-aged men, specifically men who drink more than 14 drinks of spirits per week. However, more moderate levels of consumption (<21 drinks/week) do not appear to increase the risk of type 2 diabetes in middle-aged men and women. Our results, along with those of previous studies, suggest that strategies for the prevention of type 2 diabetes need not target moderate alcohol consumption. In contrast, men who drink >14 drinks of spirits per week should be advised of the increased risk of diabetes associated with heavy alcohol consumption. Further research should investigate the potential effect modification by sex and alcoholic beverages in the association between alcohol and the risk of type 2 diabetes.
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
---|
The authors thank the staff and participants in the ARIC Study for their important contributions.
![]() |
NOTES |
---|
This study was presented in part at the 31st Annual Meeting of the Society for Epidemiologic Research, Chicago, IL, June 2426, 1998.
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|