Table 2

Two logistic regression analyses with the outcome filaggrin null mutation status and diabetes, respectively, and adjusted for variables shown in the table as well as age

 Explanatory variables General population, patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes (n=4213) Filaggrin null mutation Percentage (n/ntotal) Adjusted OR* with 95% CI Sex Men 7.8 (159/2029) 1 (reference) Women 8.8 (193/2184) 1.18 (0.94 to 1.47) Group Non-diabetic 7.8 (246/3136) 1 (reference) Screen-detected diabetes 9.1 (6/66) 1.23 (0.52 to 2.88) Self-reported diabetes 12.8 (17/133) 1.78 (1.05 to 3.04)‡, p=0.032 Type 1 diabetes 6.7 (7/104) 0.86 (0.39 to 1.87) Type 2 diabetes 9.8 (76/774) 1.37 (1.003 to 1.89)‡, p=0.048
 General population and patients with type 2 diabetes (n=4109) Explanatory variables Diabetes† Percentage (n/ntotal) Adjusted OR* with 95% CI Sex Men 29.8 (586/1967) 1 (reference) Women 18.1 (387/2142) 0.56 (0.46 to 0.67)‡, p=0.001 Filaggrin Wild type 23.2 (874/3764) 1 (reference) Null mutation 28.2 (99/345) 1.50 (1.10 to 2.06)‡, p=0.011 BMI (kg/m2) <25 9.7 (167/1713) 1 (reference) 25–30 23.2 (341/1469) 1.97 (1.56 to 2.47)‡, p=0.001 >30 49.1 (461/905) 7.36 (5.79 to 9.36)‡, p=0.001
• Non-diabetic, healthy controls from the general population in Copenhagen; Screen-detected diabetes, diabetes screening group defined as subjects who did not report diabetes but who had a fasting blood glucose ≥7 and/or glycated haemoglobin ≥6.5%. Self-reported diabetes, diabetes group defined as subjects who gave an affirmative answer to the question: ‘Have you ever been told that you suffered from diabetes?’

• * Mutually adjusted for variables shown in the table and age.

• Diabetes was defined as belonging to the ‘screen-detected diabetes group,’ the ‘self-reported diabetes group,’ or the ‘type 2 diabetes group.’ The ‘type 1 diabetes groups’ was regarded as missing data.

• Statistically significant.