Randomized trial investigates lifestyle and socioeconomic factors affecting diabetes risk and complications, suggesting public health strategy implications.
AIMS: Diabetes poses a growing global health burden. This study investigated the causal effects of lifestyle and socioeconomic factors on diabetes risk and related complications and comorbidities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We applied two-sample univariable and multivariable Mendelian randomization to assess the causal impact of 26 lifestyle and socioeconomic factors on diabetes, 7 complications, and 13 comorbidities. RESULTS: Genetically predicted protective factors included vigorous physical activity (odds ratio [OR], 0.98 [0.98-0.99]), computer use time (OR, 0.13 [0.05, 0.30]), carbohydrate intake (OR, 0.22 [0.15, 0.34]), short (OR, 0.04 [0.01, 0.16]) and long sleep duration (OR, 0.62 [0.47, 0.82]), moderate alcohol (OR, 0.13 [0.04, 0.50]) and caffeine (OR, 0.72 [0.64, 0.81]) consumption, education (OR, 0.25-0.67), and household income (OR, 0.52-0.65), which were associated with reduced risks of type 2 and gestational diabetes, stroke, coronary heart disease, heart failure, myocardial infarction, sleep apnea, and anxiety disorder (adjusted P-values <0.05). Conversely, genetically predicted factors, such as television watching (OR, 1.39 [1.23, 1.57]) and driving time (OR, 3.28 [1.27, 8.48]), insomnia (OR, 1.21-1.82), smoking behaviors (OR, 1.17-1.77), alcohol dependence (OR, 1.17-1.28), coffee consumption (OR, 1.01 [1.00, 1.02]), and the Townsend deprivation index (OR, 1.51-1.57), are associated with increased risks of diabetes-related outcomes (i.e., all diabetic types, neovascular glaucoma, heart failure, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, sleep apnea, and eating disorder) (adjusted P-values <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support causal roles of lifestyle and socioeconomic factors and diabetes-related outcomes, emphasizing the need for targeted public health strategies to promote healthier living and socioeconomic equity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: