Association of Spousal Diabetes Status and Ideal Cardiovascular Health Metrics With Risk of Incident Diabetes Among Chinese Adults.

Importance: Spouses share common socioeconomic, environmental, and lifestyle factors, and multiple studies have found that spousal diabetes status was associated with diabetes prevalence. But the association of spousal diabetes status and ideal cardiovascular health metrics (ICVHMs) assessed by the American Heart Association's Life's Essential 8 measures with incident diabetes has not been comprehensively characterized, especially in large-scale cohort studies.

Objective: To explore the association of spousal diabetes status and cardiovascular health metrics with risk of incident diabetes in Chinese adults.

Design, Setting, And Participants: This cohort study included individuals in the China Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer Cohort without diabetes who underwent baseline and follow-up glucose measurements and had spouses with baseline glucose measurements. The data were collected in January 2011 to December 2012 and March 2014 to December 2016. The spousal study had a mean (SD) follow-up of 3.6 (0.9) years (median [IQR], 3.2 [2.9-4.5] years). Statistical analysis was performed from July to November 2022.

Exposure: Spousal diabetes status was diagnosed according to the 2010 American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria. All participants provided detailed clinical, sociodemographic, and lifestyle information included in cardiovascular health metrics.

Main Outcomes And Measures: Incident diabetes, diagnosed according to 2010 ADA criteria.

Results: Overall, 34 821 individuals were included, with a mean (SD) age of 56.4 (8.3) years and 16 699 (48.0%) male participants. Spousal diabetes diagnosis was associated with an increased risk of incident diabetes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.30). Furthermore, participants whose spouses had uncontrolled glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) had a higher risk of diabetes (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.39) but the risk of diabetes in participants whose spouses had controlled HbA1c did not increase significantly (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.92-1.30). Moreover, this association varied with composite cardiovascular health status. Diabetes risk in individuals who had poor cardiovascular health status (<4 ICVHMs) was associated with spousal diabetes status (3 ICVHMs: HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.15-1.97), while diabetes risk in individuals who had intermediate to ideal cardiovascular health status (≥4 ICVHMs) was not associated with it (4 ICVHMs: HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.69-1.50).

Conclusions And Relevance: In this study, spousal diabetes diagnosis with uncontrolled HbA1c level was associated with increased risk of incident diabetes, but strict management of spousal HbA1c level and improving ICVHM profiles may attenuate the association of spousal diabetes status with diabetes risk. These findings suggest the potential benefit of couple-based lifestyle or pharmaceutical interventions for diabetes.