Prospective cohort study examines plasma phospholipid levels and ulcerative colitis risk, suggesting metabolic implications.
Objective: To investigate the association between plasma levels of total phospholipids in lipoprotein particles and the risk of incident ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods: This prospective cohort study analyzed data from 254,921 participants in the UK Biobank (2006-2020), excluding those with pre-existing UC or missing data. Phospholipid levels were measured via nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Cox proportional hazards models were adjusted for demographic, lifestyle, socioeconomic, and genetic factors. Dose-response and subgroup analyses were conducted using generalized additive models. Results: During a median follow-up duration of 15.78 years, 1,330 incident UC cases were identified. Higher phospholipid levels demonstrated a significant inverse association with UC risk. After full adjustment, each unit increase in phospholipids was associated with a 16% lower risk (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.95, p=0.006). Quartile analyses showed lower risks in higher quartiles, with the risk reduction most evident by the third quartile and then generally stable (Q4 vs Q1: HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71-0.97, p=0.020). Generalized additive and quartile analyses suggested a non-linear plateau/threshold pattern rather than a strictly linear association. Subfraction analyses showed heterogeneous associations, with inverse patterns mainly observed for phospholipids carried by HDL, IDL, and LDL particles, whereas chylomicron- and several VLDL-related phospholipids showed null or positive/non-protective associations. Conclusion: Higher plasma total phospholipid levels are independently associated with reduced UC risk, suggesting phospholipid metabolism may play a protective role in UC pathogenesis. However, this association is not uniform across lipoprotein subfractions. These findings highlight potential metabolic biomarkers and mechanistic pathways requiring further validation for UC prevention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: