
==== Front
Lancet Reg Health Am
Lancet Reg Health Am
Lancet Regional Health - Americas
2667-193X
Elsevier

S2667-193X(24)00186-8
10.1016/j.lana.2024.100859
100859
Articles
Ultra-processed foods and cardiovascular disease: analysis of three large US prospective cohorts and a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies
Mendoza Kenny a
Smith-Warner Stephanie A. ab
Rossato Sinara Laurini ac
Khandpur Neha d
Manson JoAnn E. bef
Qi Lu g
Rimm Eric B. abh
Mukamal Kenneth J. i
Willett Walter C. ab
Wang Molin bhj
Hu Frank B. abh
Mattei Josiemer jmattei@hsph.harvard.edu
ak∗
Sun Qi abhk
a Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
b Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
c Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia, State of Minas Gerais, Brazil
d Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands
e Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
f Division of Preventive Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
g Tulane University Obesity Research Center, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA
h Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
i Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
j Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
∗ Corresponding author. Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115, USA. jmattei@hsph.harvard.edu
k Co-senior authorship.

02 9 2024
9 2024
02 9 2024
37 10085915 1 2024
24 7 2024
29 7 2024
© 2024 The Author(s)
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Summary

Background

Prospective associations between total and groups of ultra-processed foods (UPF) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) remained to be characterised. Our aim was to assess the association of total and group-specific UPF intakes with CVD, coronary heart disease (CHD), and stroke in three large prospective cohorts of US adults. Additionally, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses on the existing evidence on the associations of total UPF intake with these outcomes.

Methods

UPF intake was assessed through food frequency questionnaires in the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS; n = 75,735), Nurses’ Health Study II (NHSII; n = 90,813), and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS; n = 40,409). Cox regression estimated cohort-specific associations of total and group-specific UPF intake with risk of CVD (cases = 16,800), CHD (cases = 10,401), and stroke (cases = 6758), subsequently pooled through fixed-effect models. Random-effects meta-analyses pooled existing prospective findings on the UPF-CVD association identified on Medline and Embase up to April 5, 2024, without language restrictions. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, funnel plots, and Egger’s tests, and meta-evidence was evaluated using NutriGrade.

Findings

The baseline mean (SD) age was 50.8 years (7.2) for the NHS, 36.7 years (4.6) for the NHSII, and 53.4 years (9.6) for the HPFS. The proportion of participants of White race was 97.7% in the NHS, 96.4% in the NHSII, and 94.9% in the HPFS. Among the three cohorts, multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios [HRs (95% CIs)] for CVD, CHD, and stroke for the highest (vs. lowest) total UPF intake quintile were 1.11 (1.06–1.16), 1.16 (1.09–1.24), and 1.04 (0.96–1.12), respectively. UPF groups demonstrated divergent associations. Sugar-/artificially-sweetened drinks and processed meats were associated with higher CVD risk, whereas inverse associations were observed for bread/cold cereals, yoghurt/dairy desserts, and savoury snacks. Meta-analysing 22 prospective studies showed that total UPF intake at the highest category (vs. lowest) was associated with 17% (11%–24%), 23% (12%–34%), and 9% (3%–15%) higher CVD, CHD, and stroke risk. Meta-evidence quality was high for CHD, moderate for CVD, and low for stroke.

Interpretation

Total UPF intake was adversely associated with CVD and CHD risk in US adults, corroborated by prospective studies from multiple countries, also suggesting a small excess stroke risk. Nutritional advice for cardiovascular health should consider differential consequences of group-specific UPF. Replication is needed in racially/ethnically-diverse populations.

Funding

10.13039/100000002 National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants supported the 10.13039/100030827 NHS , NHSII, and HPFS.

Keywords

Ultra-processed foods
Cardiovascular disease
Cohort studies
Meta-analysis
Systematic analysis
Nurses’ health study
==== Body
pmc Research in context

Evidence before this study

We systematically searched Medline and Embase for prospective studies assessing the association between Nova-defined ultra-processed food consumption and the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal coronary heart disease, non-fatal/fatal stroke, and overall cardiovascular disease. For Medline, we used the following search terms: (“Cardiovascular Diseases” OR “Heart Diseases” OR “myocardial ischemia” OR “Coronary Disease” OR “Myocardial Infarction” OR “Cerebrovascular Disorders” OR “Stroke”) AND (“ultra-processed” AND “food” OR “Nova”). For Embase, the terms were: (“ultra-processed” AND “food” OR “Nova”) AND (“cardiovascular” AND “disease” OR “heart” AND “disease” OR “coronary” AND “heart” AND “disease” OR “cerebrovascular” AND “disease” OR “stroke”). We also screened the reference lists of eligible studies to identify additional publications. Eligible studies were limited to those published up to April 5, 2024, with no language restrictions. Our systematic search identified 19 cohort studies that reported adverse associations between total ultra-processed food intake and cardiovascular disease risk. Notably, a study revealed that the associations with cardiovascular risk varied based on the types of ultra-processed foods, showing differential directionality. While this evidence is consistent for diabetes and cancer-cardiometabolic multimorbidity, there are no other studies examining the associations of specific ultra-processed food groups with cardiovascular disease risk within the United States.

Added value of this study

Compared to published data, our study encompassed the longest follow-up duration with repeated dietary assessments spanning over three decades. Additionally, it captured a large number of disease cases, allowing us to account for long-term diet variations, control for time-varying confounding, and detect modest associations. We observed an adverse relationship between total ultra-processed food consumption and overall cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease in three large prospective adult cohorts from the United States. We corroborated these findings with a systematic review and meta-analyses of similar studies from multiple countries, which also suggested a small significant higher stroke risk associated with the intake of these products. Furthermore, this study provides evidence on a divergent pattern of associations between ultra-processed food groups and cardiovascular risk. Sugar- and artificially sweetened beverages and processed meats were associated with higher cardiovascular disease risk, whereas inverse associations were observed for ultra-processed bread and cold cereals, yoghurt and dairy desserts, and savoury snacks.

Implications of all the available evidence

The diverse nutritional composition within these products warrants the need to deconstruct the ultra-processed food classification for a nuanced understanding of their impact on cardiovascular health. Our findings suggest that soft drinks and processed meats should be particularly discouraged, given their consistent adverse association with cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke. Reducing the content of sodium, saturated fats, added sugars, and cosmetic additives non-essential for human health in whole-grain bread, cold cereals, and some savoury snacks may enhance the cardioprotective benefits of the vitamins, minerals, and fibre found in some of these products. Replication in racially and ethnically diverse groups is necessary to determine these associations in other populations that may consume foods with distinctive composition.

Introduction

Ultra-processed foods (UPF) are edible products containing ingredients that extend palatability, profitability, and shelf-life. They encompass formulations with substances of rare culinary use and cosmetic additives, including stabilisers, colourants, flavour enhancers, emulsifiers, or sweeteners.1 In the United States (US), UPF represent 57.0% of the adult population’s energy intake.2

UPF may promote cardiovascular disease (CVD) through several mechanisms. Typical UPF contain excess calories, added sugars, sodium, and unhealthy fats1 associated with higher CVD risk.3, 4, 5 Beyond low nutritional quality, UPF are sources of compounds generated through production and packaging associated with glycometabolism disturbance,6 microbiota alterations,7 inflammation,8 higher diabetes risk,9 endothelial abnormalities,10 pro-atherogenic apolipoproteins,11 atherosclerosis,12,13 and cardiac tissue damage.14 These compounds are bisphenol-A,6,9 emulsifiers,7 thickeners,8 advanced glycation end products,10 sweeteners,11 acrylamide,12 monosodium glutamate,13 and sulphites.14 European and US cohort studies have consistently associated UPF consumption with higher CVD risk.15, 16, 17, 18, 19 UPF are also associated with obesity, hypertension, and diabetes,20, 21, 22 well-established CVD risk factors.23

Despite the accumulating evidence on UPF and CVD, a significant knowledge gap remains. UPF1 encompass a heterogeneous group of products ranging from mass-produced whole-grain vitamin-fortified breads,24 to nutritionally devoid soft beverages associated with higher CVD.25 Importantly, a US-based study showed that while artificially- and sugar-sweetened beverages, processed meats, and ready-to-eat dishes are associated with higher type 2 diabetes risk, ultra-processed whole-grain bread displays inverse associations.22 Only one study in the US has examined whether contrasting associations by UPF groups also occur for CVD, documenting an adverse CVD risk with a higher intake of bread, processed meat, and low-calorie drinks, while a lower CVD risk with a higher breakfast cereals intake.16

To provide further evidence, we estimated the association of total and group-specific UPF intakes with CVD, coronary heart disease (CHD), and stroke in three large prospective cohorts of US adults. We also conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to update the evidence of associations of total UPF intake with these outcomes.

Methods

Cohorts

Three prospective cohorts were included. The Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) comprises 121,701 female nurses aged 30–55 years at recruitment (1976).26 The Nurses’ Health Study II (NHSII) recruited 116,340 women aged 25–42 years in 1989.26 The Health Professionals Follow–up Study (HPFS) is composed of 51,529 men aged 40–75 years recruited in 1986.27

Exclusions applied to participants who returned only the baseline questionnaire, had prior CVD/cancer at baseline, or reported outlying energy intake (women: <500/>3500 kcal; men: <800/>4200 kcal). Participants with body mass index (BMI) < 15 kg/m2/>50 kg/m2 were excluded, as these values might be a proxy of cardiovascular pathophysiology28,29 or dietary data misreport.30 After exclusions, 75,735 NHS, 90,813 NHSII, and 40,409 HPFS participants remained in the analyses (Supplementary Fig. S1). Participants signed informed consent and the boards of the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health approved the study.

Diet

Assessed every 2–4 years through validated food frequency questionnaires, dietary data were linked with the Harvard food frequency questionnaire items nutrient content database established in 1984.26 This database is updated every four years with the US Department of Agriculture Nutrient Database for Standard Reference and the Food and Nutrients Database for Dietary Studies, manufacturers’ data, and Harvard biochemical information.

Nova1 was utilised to categorise foods into four groups: Unprocessed/minimally processed foods; processed culinary ingredients; processed foods; and UPF. Food frequency questionnaire items31,32 categorisation33 consisted of four iterative stages: creation of a list of all food frequency questionnaire items; assignment of items to Nova categories; cross-checking for consensus and shortlisting discordant items; discussion with experts supported by dieticians, cohort-specific documents, and grocery store websites scans.

UPF were divided into ten mutually exclusive groups (Supplementary Table S1) considering nutritional composition: 1) bread and cereals [sub-groups: breakfast cereals; dark/whole-grain bread; refined-grain bread]; 2) sauces, spreads, and condiments; 3) packaged sweet snacks and desserts; 4) packaged savoury snacks; 5) sugar-sweetened beverages; 6) processed red meat, poultry, and fish; 7) ready-to-eat/heat mixed dishes; 8) yoghurt/dairy-based desserts; 9) hard liquors; 10) artificially-sweetened beverages. Nine food frequency questionnaire items (“alternative” UPF), namely popcorn, soy milk, cream, pancakes/waffles, pie, chicken sandwich, beef, pork, or lamb sandwiches, tomato sauce, and potato/corn chips, had limited information on ingredient composition and were assigned to a non-UPF category in principal analyses and to UPF in sensitivity analyses.

Daily total energy and UPF intakes were calculated. UPF consumption was expressed as a percentage contribution to total energy intake and divided into quintiles. The original and a modified version of the Alternative Healthy Eating Index (AHEI)34 were used to capture diet quality. To construct the modified score, whole grains from ultra-processed bread, and other items, namely soda, processed meats, hard liquors, fats, and sodium were removed from the AHEI; this modified score captures adherence to recommended intakes of unprocessed, minimally processed, or processed vegetables, fruits, whole grains, fruit juice, nuts, legumes, red meat, beer, and wine, which are associated with chronic disease.34

CVD

The outcomes were incident CHD (non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal CHD), non-fatal and fatal stroke (ischemic and haemorrhagic), and a composite CVD outcome. Definite and probable (medical records or death certificate unavailable) cases were included; definite case-only analyses in the cohorts produced similar results.35,36 Non-fatal cases were identified through self-reports at biennial questionnaires. Physicians blinded to the participants’ dietary information confirmed or refuted cases by reviewing medical records. Myocardial infarction confirmation required symptoms and electrocardiographic abnormalities or elevated cardiac enzyme levels.37,38 Stroke confirmation required neurological deficits of sudden or rapid onset lasting >24 h or until death, with thrombotic or embolic occlusion of a cerebral artery or clinical symptoms and signs of spontaneous intracranial haemorrhage.39 Fatal cases were identified through family member inquiry, the Postal Service, or the National Death Index.40 Death certificates and medical/autopsy records further confirmed fatal events.

Covariates

Biennial questionnaires26 inquired about information on age, race (White, African-American/Black, Asian, and others), and marital and working status. Data on smoking, physical activity, sleep duration, and use of multivitamins, aspirin, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were collected. Participants provided information on CVD family history, menopausal hormone and oral contraceptive use (women only), body weight, height, and diagnosis status of hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes. BMI was derived as kg/m2.

Statistical analyses

Analyses were conducted in SAS (9.4) and Stata (17.0); statistical significance was set at α = 0.05. To circumvent overreliance on significance testing, we integrated self-information values [s-values = log2(p)] when assessing primary associations. s-values represent the information of the data against the null hypothesis, facilitating the compatibility interpretation that is limited in p-values and their probability bounds; a higher s-value indicates stronger evidence against the null hypothesis.41

Cohort-specific baseline age-adjusted means, medians, or proportions of covariates were tabulated in the overall sample and across extreme UPF intake quintiles [quintile 1 (Q1) and quintile 5 (Q5)]. Dietary intakes were cumulatively averaged to account for within-person variability and long-term consumption. For example, for NHS, UPF intake data from the 1984 questionnaire were used to predict CVD incidence between June 1984 and 1986, the average of the 1984 and 1986 UPF intakes was used to predict CVD incidence between June 1986 and 1988, and so on. Generating a time-varying variable, this method uses all known UPF intake values prior to the occurrence of an event to investigate the development of CVD to best represent the participants’ long-term dietary patterns during follow-up.42,43 To alleviate potential reverse causation bias, diet updating was stopped upon cancer or diabetes diagnosis.44 The proportion of missing data for UPF consumption at baseline was 0.0008% for NHS, 1.6% for NHSII, and 5.9% for HPFS (Supplementary Fig. S1). As these proportions were relatively immaterial to our cohort-specific final sample sizes (substantially lower than or close to 5%), we excluded them in the analyses and replaced missing intakes post-baseline with valid values from the preceding questionnaire. The missing covariate indicator method (MCIM) was implemented to deal with missingness in covariates. Analyses within our cohorts have shown that when missingness is not greater than 50%, MCIM yields estimates with relative bias greater than 10% in fewer than 5% of the cases, and then only when the covariate is a strong confounder.45 The performance of MCIM to deal with missingness and prevent appreciable bias holds for our study, as our proportion of missing covariate values ranges from 0.1% to 13.3%. In previous analyses within our cohorts, MCIM produced results materially similar to those from the multiple imputation method.45 For instance, in an analysis assessing the associations between a low-carbohydrate diet score and all-cause mortality, MCIM yielded a primary hazard ratio [(HR); 95% confidence interval (95% CI)] of 1.04 (0.96–1.12), and multiple imputation one of 1.06 (1.03–1.10)]. In another analysis estimating the association between skipping breakfast and incident coronary heart disease, MCIM produced a primary HR of 1.27 (1.06–1.53), and the multiple imputation method one of 1.29 (1.07–1.56). Similarly, in a study assessing the association between endometriosis and incident coronary heart disease, MCIM [HR: 1.62 (1.39–1.89)] yielded almost the same estimates as the multiple imputation method [1.63 (1.38–1.92)].45

The composite variable encompassing total UPF intake was utilized in our primary risk models. This approach is analogous to dietary pattern analyses, which are recommended for comprehensively considering various detrimental or beneficial dietary elements that may synergistically or antagonistically influence a specific outcome, such as the relationship between ultra-processed diets and CVD.46,47 Age- and period-stratified Cox proportional hazards models estimated HRs and 95% CIs for the cohort-specific associations. The origin times for survival analyses are the study baselines, set to be 1984 (NHS), 1991 (NHSII), and 1986 (HPFS), when the first comprehensive food frequency questionnaire was administered. Participants’ person-years were calculated from the point at which each participant returned the baseline questionnaire (start time for survival analysis) to the CVD diagnosis date, death date, date of last return of a biennial questionnaire, or the end of follow-up [June 2016 (NHS); June 2017 (NHSII); January 2016 (HPFS)], whichever happened first. We examined the possibly non-linear relation between UPF intake (continuous form) and our outcomes (risk of total CVD, CHD, and stroke) non-parametrically with restricted cubic splines.48 We used four knots positioned at the cohort-specific 5th, 35th, 65th, and 95th percentiles of the distribution of the UPF intake variable, aimed at achieving a balance between model flexibility and simplicity. This approach ensures that the model can effectively capture non-linear relationships in both the central range and the tails of the distribution.48 All selected confounders were included in this approach and tests for non-linearity used the likelihood ratio test, comparing the model with only the linear term to the model with the linear and the cubic spline terms (Supplementary Figs. S2–S10). The proportional hazards assumption was assessed through separate cross-product terms between the quintile-specific median of UPF intake or each of all confounders and age in years (Supplementary Tables S2–S4).

Selection of confounders was determined by the modified disjunctive cause criterion,49 guided by literature review. Model 1 was adjusted for energy intake (density model).50 The principal coefficient in the density model represents the relationship between the UPF composition of the diet and CVD, holding total energy intake constant. This method entails an isocaloric approach, controls for confounding by energy intake, and accounts for imperfect dietary measurements associated with calorie intake.50 The fully-adjusted model also included race (White and others),51 marital (never married, married, divorced, separated, or widowed)52 and working status (retired or not),53 smoking status [never, past, or current smoker (1–14, 15–24, or ≥25 cigarettes/day)],51 physical activity [quintiles of metabolic equivalents (METs)-hours/week],51 sleep duration (≤5, six, seven, eight, nine, or ≥10 h/day),54 family history of CVD (yes/no),51 multivitamin,55 aspirin56 and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs use (yes/no),57 menopausal hormone (premenopausal, never, current, or former)51 and oral contraceptive use (yes/no)51; only the baseline levels (not time-varying) of BMI (<25 kg/m2, 25–29.9 kg/m2, and ≥30 kg/m2),51 hypertension,51 hypercholesterolemia,51 and diabetes (yes/no)51 were included in this model. The quintile-specific median of UPF intake was modelled as a continuous variable to obtain p-values for the trend through Wald tests.58 The 10 UPF group intakes (quintiles) were simultaneously included in different models to assess their associations with CVD, CHD, and stroke risk, excluding total UPF intake to prevent collinearity. A distinct model, encompassing breakfast cereals, dark/whole-grain bread, refined-grain bread, and the remaining nine UPF groups (excluding total bread and cereals), was employed to derive estimates for the specified UPF sub-groups. Cohort estimates were pooled through fixed-effects models.

Sensitivity analyses were conducted. First, as some of the predictors exhibited non-proportional hazards, we introduced interaction terms between those covariates and a log-transformed age variable into the primary cohort risk models. This aimed to examine potential alterations in the primary estimates of the composite variable of CVD. Second, estimates were pooled through random-effects models. Third, modified definitions of total UPF were derived excluding hard liquors,27 yoghurts,59 and both items, given their inverse associations with cardiovascular risk. Furthermore, sugar-sweetened beverages and processed meats were excluded to evaluate an UPF pattern without products consistently adversely associated with CVD risk.25,60 Fourth, the following analyses examined the robustness of our findings: incorporating the “alternative” UPF into the total UPF intake variable; further adjusting for the modified AHEI score; stratifying models by AHEI scores at or above the baseline median vs. below the median, and BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 vs. <25 kg/m2. Cross-product terms between the quintile-specific UPF intake median and AHEI or BMI were used to evaluate interactions through Wald tests. We also conducted a four-year lagged analysis by excluding person-time and cases of the first four years of follow-up to account for potential reverse causation bias, and we fitted a model with time-varying BMI as a covariate. Three modified UPF group models were fitted to consider factors61 potentially impacting artificially-sweetened beverages estimates: adjusting for time-varying BMI; adjusting for dieting and weight loss behaviours [self-report (yes/no) of intentional/unintentional weight loss, low-calorie diet adherence, fasting, increases in exercise, use of pills, following weight loss programs, and gastric bypass]; and adjusting for dieting and weight loss behaviours and time-varying BMI. Lastly, the original UPF group model was fitted in a four-year lagged analysis.

Systematic review and meta-analysis

Systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to summarise existing evidence and current study findings (Supplementary Materials, Supplementary Materials for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses, Supplementary Methods). The report complies with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.62 The protocol was registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO CRD42023410448). Searches were conducted on Medline and Embase up to April 15, 2023. Updated searches were conducted until April 5, 2024, covering the time between the original searches and the peer review process. Search terms were entered into the search engines in English, but no language restrictions were applied when the actual searches were initiated. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, funnel plots, and Egger’s tests.

Exposure operationalisation-related heterogeneity was found in eligible studies. They utilised UPF servings/day or relative caloric or diet weight contributions. Hence, three separate random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool CVD, CHD, and stroke risk estimates, comparing the highest intake category vs. the lowest. Outcome-specific leave-one-out meta-analyses, stratified meta-analyses (CVD only), and random-effects meta-regressions (CVD only) explored heterogeneity. Meta-regression models used the log HR as the outcome variable and assumed a normal error distribution, except when the Knapp–Hartung adjustment (Sidik–Jonkman) was applied to models with covariate-specific strata with ≤5 studies. The quality of the meta-evidence was evaluated using NutriGrade.63

Role of the funding source

The NHS, NHSII, and HPFS are supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants UM1 CA186107, P01 CA87969, R01 CA49449, R01 HL034594, R01 HL088521, U01 CA176726, R01 CA67262, U01 CA167552, R01 HL035464, R01 HL060712, R01 DK120870, and U01 HL145386. This project was also supported by scholarships from the Mexican Council of Science and Technology (Spanish acronym: CONACYT), Fundación México en Harvard, and NIH through the Harvard T.H. School of Public Health provided to KM. NK received fees from the Pan American Health Organization and Resolve to Save Lives for consulting activities unrelated to this research during its execution. The institution with which KJM is affiliated received a grant from the US Highbush Blueberry Council. The funding sources did not participate in designing or conducting the present study, nor in collecting, managing, analysing, interpretating the data, or submitting this study. None of the authors has been paid to write this article. Authors were not precluded from accessing data in the study, and they accept responsibility to submit for publication.

Results

Cohorts

The baseline mean (SD) age was 50.8 years (7.2) for the NHS, 36.7 years (4.6) for the NHSII, and 53.4 years (9.6) for the HPFS. The proportion of participants of White race was 97.7% in the NHS, 96.4% in the NHSII, and 94.9% in the HPFS (Table 1). The mean total UPF caloric contribution ranged from 15.3–20.8% in Q1 and 42.8–49.6% in Q5, with NHSII having the highest intake [34.4% (10.3) of total energy intake]. Across cohorts, the top three UPF contributors to energy intake (median) were bread and cereals (6.4–7.4%), sweet snacks and desserts (4.5–6.3%), and ready-to-eat/heat mixed dishes (3.9–5.8%). Participants with the highest total UPF intake (vs. the lowest) had higher energy intake, lower AHEI scores, and higher prevalence of smoking and obesity.Table 1 Age-standardised baseline characteristics of the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), NHSII, and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) participants, according to total ultra-processed food intake.

	NHS, 1984 (n = 75,735)
Total UPF intake	NHSII, 1991 (n = 90,813)
Total UPF intake	HPFS, 1986 (n = 40,409)
Total UPF intake	
Overall	Total UPF Q1a (0.01–22.5)b n = 15,147	Total UPF Q5a (40.1–89.9)b n = 15,146	Overall	Total UPF Q1a (0.01–25.8)b n = 18,163	Total UPF Q5a (42.7–94.4)b n = 18,161	Overall	Total UPF Q1a (0.01–20.0)b n = 8082	Total UPF Q5a (36.3–86.4)b n = 8081	
Age (years)c, mean (SD)	50.8 (7.2)	52.4 (6.8)	49.5 (7.3)	36.7 (4.6)	37.3 (4.5)	36.1 (4.7)	53.4 (9.6)	55.6 (9.4)	51.3 (9.5)	
Race/ethnicity, %										
 White	97.7	96.4	98.4	96.4	94.1	97.1	94.9	93.5	95.4	
 African American	1.3	2.0	1.2	1.5	1.7	1.7	1.1	1.2	1.0	
 Asian	0.7	1.3	0.2	1.6	3.6	0.7	1.8	2.8	1.2	
 Other	0.2	0.3	0.2	0.5	0.7	0.4	2.3	2.4	2.4	
% Energybper day from total UPF,mean (SD)	31.5 (10.7)	17.3 (4.2)	47.0 (6.1)	34.4 (10.3)	20.8 (4.2)	49.6 (6.0)	28.3 (9.9)	15.3 (3.8)	42.8 (5.9)	
UPF groups (%Energyb),median (IQR)										
 Bread and breakfast cereals	7.4 (4.6, 10.9)	4.9 (2.9, 7.4)	9.4 (5.8, 13.6)	6.4 (4.0, 9.5)	4.9 (2.9, 7.0)	7.3 (4.3, 11.3)	6.7 (4.0, 9.8)	4.6 (2.6, 7.1)	8.5 (5.1, 12.7)	
 UP cold cereals	0.9 (0.1, 3.4)	0.6 (0.1, 2.6)	0.8 (0.0, 3.5)	1.4 (0.4, 3.1)	0.9 (0.3, 2.6)	1.0 (0.3, 3.0)	1.7 (0.3, 4.0)	0.8 (0.1, 3.1)	1.8 (0.3, 4.4)	
 UP dark bread and whole-grain breads	1.4 (0.3, 2.9)	1.4 (0.4, 2.7)	1.0 (0.2, 2.8)	1.3 (0.3, 2.6)	1.3 (0.4, 2.2)	1.0 (0.2, 2.6)	1.3 (0.3, 2.7)	1.2 (0.3, 2.3)	1.1 (0.2, 3.0)	
 Other UP refined bread	2.7 (1.1, 5.1)	1.3 (0.5, 2.8)	4.4 (2.0, 8.4)	2.3 (1.0, 4.3)	1.3 (0.6, 2.8)	3.2 (1.3, 6.2)	1.8 (0.6, 3.8)	0.9 (0.3, 2.1)	3.0 (1.1, 6.2)	
 Sweet snacks and desserts	6.3 (3.4, 10.5)	2.8 (1.2, 4.6)	12.2 (7.4, 18.7)	6.2 (3.7, 9.8)	3.4 (1.8, 5.2)	10.5 (6.3, 16.2)	4.5 (2.2, 7.7)	1.9 (0.7, 3.4)	8.8 (5.1, 13.5)	
 Savoury snacks	0.1 (0.01, 0.2)	0.1 (0.01, 0.2)	0.1 (0.01, 0.2)	0.3 (0.1, 0.6)	0.2 (0.1, 0.4)	0.3 (0.1, 0.8)	0.1 (0.01, 0.11)	0.1 (0.01, 0.11)	0.1 (0.01, 0.1)	
 Sauces, spreads, and condiments	3.4 (1.9, 5.4)	2.3 (1.1, 3.8)	4.1 (2.3, 6.5)	2.3 (1.3, 3.7)	1.6 (0.8, 2.7)	2.6 (1.4, 4.4)	2.0 (0.9, 3.4)	1.2 (0.5, 2.2)	2.5 (1.3, 4.3)	
 Processed red meat, poultry, and fish	1.7 (0.8, 3.1)	1.0 (0.1, 1.9)	2.3 (1.3, 4.1)	2.7 (1.6, 4.4)	2.1 (1.1, 3.4)	3.0 (1.7, 4.9)	1.4 (0.6, 2.8)	0.7 (0.1, 1.5)	2.0 (1.0, 3.8)	
 Ready-to-eat/heat mixed dishes	3.9 (1.9, 5.9)	2.1 (0.1, 3.9)	5.0 (3.0, 7.4)	5.8 (3.9, 8.2)	4.0 (2.5, 5.6)	7.5 (5.1, 11.9)	4.6 (2.6, 7.2)	2.7 (1.1, 4.3)	6.5 (3.9, 10.1)	
 Yoghurt and dairy-based desserts	0.9 (0.5, 2.1)	0.7 (0.1, 1.2)	1.1 (0.6, 3.1)	1.0 (0.5, 1.9)	0.7 (0.4, 1.3)	1.0 (0.6, 2.4)	1.0 (0.4, 2.3)	0.6 (0.1, 1.2)	1.4 (0.6, 3.2)	
 Sugar-sweetened beverages	0.8 (0.1, 2.9)	0.1 (0.01, 0.8)	2.7 (0.6, 8.3)	1.1 (0.1, 4.7)	0.1 (0.09, 1.4)	4.7 (0.6, 13.8)	0.9 (0.1, 3.3)	0.1 (0.01, 0.9)	3.1 (0.6, 7.5)	
 Artificially-sweetened beverages (servings/day)	0.1 (0.01, 0.9)	0.1 (0.01, 0.9)	0.1 (0.01, 0.9)	0.5 (0.1, 1.3)	0.3 (0.1, 1.0)	0.5 (0.1, 2.0)	0.1 (0.01, 0.6)	0.1 (0.01, 0.4)	0.1 (0.01, 0.9)	
 Hard liquors	0.1 (0.01,0.1)	0.1 (0.01, 0.2)	0.1 (0.01, 0.2)	0.1 (0.01, 0.11)	0.1 (0.01, 0.11)	0.1 (0.01, 0.11)	0.1 (0.01, 0.3)	0.1 (0.01, 0.3)	0.1 (0.01, 0.2)	
Total energy intake (kcal/day), mean (SD)	1745.0 (531.0)	1589.0 (504.0)	1873.0 (572.0)	1788.0 (547.0)	1705.0 (521.0)	1860.0 (587.0)	1982.0 (616.0)	1883.0 (596.0)	2069.0 (661.0)	
AHEI score (points),mean (SD)	48.3 (10.8)	54.7 (11.3)	42.5 (9.1)	48.6 (11.0)	55.1 (11.0)	42.1 (9.6)	52.8 (11.5)	59.1 (11.7)	46.8 (10.0)	
Smoking status, %										
 Never smoker	44.1	41.6	43.2	65.5	62.9	66.0	48.2	48.5	48.6	
 Past smoker	31.7	36.3	26.7	22.3	25.3	19.5	42.8	44.1	40.7	
 Current smoker, 1–14 cigarettes/day	7.5	7.4	8.4	5.5	5.7	5.4	2.8	2.6	2.7	
 15–24 cigarettes/day	9.7	8.7	11.6	4.7	4.4	6.1	3.3	2.9	3.6	
 25+ cigarettes/day	7.0	6.0	10.0	2.0	1.7	2.9	3.0	2.0	4.4	
Family history of cardiovascular disease, %	19.5	20.1	19.1	49.8	48.8	50.7	12.2	12.4	12.7	
Cardiovascular risk factors at baseline, %										
 Body mass index (BMI), mean (SD)	25.0 (4.7)	24.6 (4.4)	25.4 (5.1)	24.6 (5.1)	24.0 (4.5)	25.1 (5.7)	25.4 (3.1)	25.1 (3.1)	25.7 (3.2)	
 Overweight (BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2)	26.6	25.5	26.7	20.7	19.7	20.5	44.5	39.9	45.9	
 Obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2)	13.3	10.7	15.8	13.4	9.8	17.6	7.6	6.2	8.9	
 Hypertension	8.1	8.4	7.9	3.3	3.1	3.9	20.4	21.3	20.5	
 Hypercholesterolemia	3.5	4.2	3.7	9.5	8.6	11.0	11.0	12.2	10.3	
 Diabetes	3.1	4.0	2.3	1.0	1.3	0.7	2.6	3.5	1.7	
Multivitamin use, %	37.0	44.5	31.7	43.9	48.2	39.2	32.5	36.5	29.6	
Aspirin use, %	71.1	67.3	71.7	11.3	10.7	12.1	27.0	24.8	28.1	
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs use, %	36.3	33.4	37.1	19.3	18.1	21.1	5.4	4.7	6.1	
UPF: Ultra-processed foods; AHEI, The Alternative Healthy Eating Index (AHEI).

a Quintiles of energy proportion from UPF in the total calorie intake.

b Energy proportion from UPF in the total calorie intake.

c Not age-adjusted.

The median [interquartile range (IQR)] of follow-up was 31.9 years (31.8, 32.0) for NHS, 26.0 (25.9, 26.1) for NHSII, and 29.7 (29.2, 29.8) for HPFS. The proportion of non-CVD deaths during the follow-up period was 20.3% for the NHS, 2.7% for the NHSII, and 24.3% for the HPFS; the proportion of loss to follow-up was 10.4% for NHS, 1.5% for NHSII, and 9.8% for HPFS. The cohort-specific and pooled HRs of incident cardiovascular outcomes are in Table 2, Table 3. Multivariable pooled HRs (95% CIs) comparing extreme total UPF intake quintiles were 1.11 (1.06–1.16; s-value > 13.3; p-trend < 0.0001) for CVD, 1.16 (1.09–1.24; s-value > 13.3; p-trend < 0.0001) for CHD, and 1.04 (0.96–1.12; s-value = 1.5; p-trend = 0.58) for stroke. NHSII participants had the highest HR for CVD [1.22 (95% CI: 1.05–1.42); s-value = 6.6; p-trend = 0.01] and CHD [1.28 (95% CI: 1.04–1.56); s-value = 5.8; p-trend = 0.01] compared with NHS and HPFS.Table 2 Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for total cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke associated with total UPF intake in three US cohorts of women and men: the NHS (n = 75,735; 1984–2016), NHS II (n = 90,813; 1991–2017), and HPFS (n = 40,409; 1986–2016).

	Total UPF intake	
Nurses’ Health Study (NHS)	Q2a	Q3a	Q4a	Q5a	p for trendb	
	HR	95% CI	p	HR	95% CI	p	HR	95% CI	p	HR	95% CI	p	sd	
Total CVD, 8446 cases/2104181 person-years	
 Age- and energy-adjusted	1.04	0.97	1.11	0.32	1.02	0.96	1.10	0.49	1.09	1.02	1.16	0.01	1.20	1.12	1.28	<0.0001	>13.3	<0.0001	
 Fully-adjusted modelc	1.06	0.99	1.13	0.10	1.02	0.95	1.09	0.62	1.05	0.98	1.12	0.20	1.05	0.98	1.13	0.13	2.9	0.21	
CHD, 4622 cases/2106706 person-years																			
 Age- and energy-adjusted	1.05	0.95	1.15	0.33	1.05	0.96	1.15	0.30	1.14	1.04	1.25	0.01	1.29	1.18	1.41	<0.0001	>13.3	<0.0001	
 Fully-adjusted modelc	1.09	0.99	1.19	0.08	1.05	0.96	1.16	0.29	1.09	0.99	1.20	0.07	1.11	1.01	1.22	0.03	5.1	0.04	
Stroke, 4142 cases/2106517 person-year																			
 Age- and energy-adjusted	1.01	0.92	1.11	0.78	1.00	0.91	1.11	0.93	1.05	0.95	1.15	0.34	1.12	1.01	1.23	0.03	5.3	0.02	
 Fully-adjusted modelc	1.02	0.93	1.12	0.67	0.99	0.90	1.09	0.84	1.01	0.92	1.12	0.83	1.02	0.92	1.12	0.76	0.4	0.84	
Nurses’ Health Study II (NHSII)																			
	
Total CVD, 1668 cases/2309642 person-years	
 Age- and energy-adjusted	1.01	0.86	1.18	0.91	1.03	0.88	1.21	0.71	1.16	1.00	1.36	0.06	1.50	1.29	1.74	<0.0001	>13.3	<0.0001	
 Fully-adjusted modelc	0.97	0.82	1.13	0.66	0.96	0.82	1.13	0.61	1.04	0.89	1.22	0.61	1.22	1.05	1.42	0.01	6.6	0.01	
CHD, 889 cases/2310402 person-year																			
 Age- and energy-adjusted	0.91	0.73	1.14	0.42	1.02	0.82	1.26	0.86	1.07	0.86	1.32	0.56	1.63	1.34	1.99	<0.0001	>13.3	<0.0001	
 Fully-adjusted modelc	0.87	0.70	1.08	0.21	0.94	0.76	1.17	0.58	0.95	0.76	1.18	0.64	1.28	1.04	1.56	0.02	5.8	0.01	
Stroke, 786 cases/2310399 person-years																			
 Age- and energy-adjusted	1.13	0.90	1.41	0.31	1.04	0.82	1.31	0.74	1.29	1.03	1.61	0.03	1.36	1.09	1.70	0.01	7.2	0.01	
 Fully-adjusted modelc	1.08	0.86	1.35	0.53	0.98	0.77	1.24	0.85	1.16	0.93	1.46	0.19	1.16	0.92	1.46	0.21	2.3	0.16	
Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS)																			
	
Total CVD, 6686 cases/974073 person-years	
 Age- and energy-adjusted	1.03	0.96	1.11	0.39	1.05	0.98	1.13	0.18	1.03	0.95	1.11	0.48	1.17	1.08	1.26	<0.0001	>13.3	0.01	
 Fully-adjusted modelc	1.06	0.98	1.14	0.15	1.08	1.01	1.17	0.04	1.05	0.97	1.13	0.22	1.15	1.07	1.24	0.01	11.7	0.01	
CHD, 4890 cases/975454 person-year																			
 Age- and energy-adjusted	1.01	0.93	1.10	0.78	1.03	0.94	1.12	0.54	1.05	0.96	1.15	0.30	1.19	1.09	1.30	<0.0001	>13.3	0.01	
 Fully-adjusted modelc	1.04	0.96	1.14	0.35	1.07	0.98	1.17	0.14	1.08	0.99	1.19	0.08	1.19	1.09	1.30	0.01	13.3	0.01	
Stroke, 1830 cases/976459 person-years																			
 Age- and energy-adjusted	1.09	0.95	1.26	0.22	1.12	0.97	1.29	0.12	0.97	0.84	1.13	0.71	1.09	0.94	1.26	0.25	2.0	0.62	
 Fully-adjusted modelc	1.10	0.95	1.26	0.19	1.12	0.97	1.29	0.13	0.96	0.83	1.12	0.59	1.04	0.90	1.21	0.60	0.7	0.87	
UPF, Ultra-processed foods; CVD, cardiovascular disease; CHD, Coronary Heart Disease; NSAI, Non-steroidal-inflammatory drugs; BMI, body mass index.

a Quintiles of energy proportion from total UPF intake in the total energy intake. Quintile one (not shown) was the reference category.

b The median value of UPF intake within each quintile category was modelled as a continuous variable to calculate p-value for trend.

c Multivariable Cox regression stratified by age in months and calendar year in two-year intervals was used to estimate the associations of cumulatively-averaged UPF intake quintiles with CVD risk. The model was adjusted for race/ethnicity, marital status, working status, smoking status, quintiles of physical activity (MET-hours/week), sleep patterns (hours/day), family history of CVD, multivitamin use, aspirin use, NSAID use, menopausal hormone use status (women only), oral contraceptive use (women only), energy intake, BMI at baseline, hypertension at baseline, hypercholesterolemia at baseline, and diabetes at baseline. We stopped updating the diet after the participant’s diagnosis of cancer or diabetes. NHS and NHSII only included women, and HPFS only included men; therefore, cohort-specific models inherently controlled for sex.

d s-values: −log2(p). The s-value is the number of bits of information against the null hypothesis (HR = 1.0); a higher s-value indicates stronger evidence against the null hypothesis.

Table 3 Pooleda hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for total cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke associated with total UPF intake in three large prospective cohorts in the US: the NHS (n = 75,735; 1984–2016), NHS II (n = 90,813; 1991–2017), and HPFS (n = 40,409; 1986–2016).

	Total UPF intake	
	Q2b	Q3b	Q4b	Q5b	p for trendd	
	HR	95% CI	p	HR	95% CI	p	HR	95% CI	p	HR	95% CI	p	sf	I2, %c	
Total CVD, 16,800 cases/5387896 person-years	
 Age- and energy-adjusted model	1.03	0.98	1.08	0.20	1.04	0.99	1.09	0.15	1.07	1.02	1.12	0.01	1.21	1.16	1.27	<0.0001	>13.3	78.1	<0.0001	
 Fully-adjusted modele	1.05	1.00	1.10	0.05	1.04	0.99	1.09	0.13	1.05	1.00	1.10	0.07	1.11	1.06	1.16	<0.0001	>13.3	55.2	<0.0001	
CHD, 10,401 cases/5392562 person-years																				
 Age- and energy-adjusted model	1.02	0.96	1.08	0.54	1.04	0.98	1.10	0.25	1.09	1.02	1.16	0.01	1.27	1.20	1.35	<0.0001	>13.3	76.2	<0.0001	
 Fully-adjusted modele	1.05	0.99	1.11	0.14	1.05	0.99	1.12	0.12	1.08	1.01	1.14	0.02	1.16	1.09	1.24	<0.0001	>13.3	3.8	<0.0001	
Stroke, 6758 cases/5393375 person-years																				
 Age- and energy-adjusted model	1.05	0.97	1.13	0.23	1.04	0.96	1.12	0.31	1.05	0.98	1.14	0.19	1.13	1.05	1.22	0.01	10.0	31.2	0.01	
 Fully-adjusted modele	1.05	0.97	1.13	0.22	1.02	0.95	1.10	0.55	1.01	0.94	1.10	0.73	1.04	0.96	1.12	0.35	1.5	<0.1	0.58	
NHS, Nurses’ Health Study; HPFS, the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study; UPF, Ultra-processed foods; CVD, cardiovascular disease; CHD, Coronary Heart Disease; NSAI, Non-steroidal-inflammatory drugs; BMI, body mass index; I2: the percentage of the total variability in the set of effect sizes due to heterogeneity (fixed effects models).

a Cohort-specific estimates were meta-analysed with fixed-effects models.

b Quintiles of energy proportion from total UPF intake in the total energy intake. Quintile one (not shown) was the reference category.

c I2 statistics were obtained for each pair of quintile comparisons (i.e., Q5 vs. Q1, Q4 vs. Q1, Q3 vs. Q1, and Q2 vs. Q1); only I2 for Q5 vs. Q1 is shown.

d The median value of UPF intake within each quintile category was modelled as a continuous variable to calculate the p-value for trend.

e Multivariable Cox regression stratified by age in months and the calendar year in two-year intervals was used to estimate the associations of cumulatively-averaged UPF intake quintiles with CVD risk. The model was adjusted for race/ethnicity, marital status, working status, smoking status, quintiles of physical activity (MET-hours/week), sleep patterns (hours/day), family history of CVD, multivitamin use, aspirin use, NSAID use, menopausal hormone use status (women only), oral contraceptive use (women only), energy intake, BMI at baseline, hypertension at baseline, hypercholesterolemia at baseline, and diabetes at baseline. We stopped updating the diet after the participant’s diagnosis of cancer or diabetes. NHS and NHSII only included women, and HPFS only included men; therefore, cohort-specific models inherently controlled for sex.

f s-values: −log2(p). The s-value is the number of bits of information against the null hypothesis (HR = 1.0); a higher s-value indicates stronger evidence against the null hypothesis.

Sensitivity analyses showed that the cohort-specific associations between total UPF intake and CVD were the same in models with covariate-specific non-proportional hazards (Supplementary Table S5). Similarly, pooled associations of total UPF intake with CVD, CHD, and stroke were the same in random-effects models (Supplementary Table S6). The associations for total CVD and CHD persisted after removing hard liquors and yoghurt from the analysis (Fig. 1). Removing sugar-sweetened beverages and processed meats attenuated risk estimates (Q5 vs. Q1) for CVD [HR: 1.00 (95% CI: 0.96–1.05)] and CHD [HR: 1.06 (95% CI: 1.00–1.13)] and changed directionality of stroke estimates [HR: 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85–0.99)]. Associations were similar when including the nine “alternative” UPF. Adjustment for the modified AHEI scores produced attenuated HRs for CVD [1.03 (0.98–1.09)] and CHD [1.07 (1.00–1.14)]. Pooled HRs for CVD, CHD, and stroke did not substantially change after adjusting for time-varying BMI (Supplementary Table S7). Pooled HRs (95% CIs) comparing extreme total UPF intake quintiles remained statistically significant for CHD risk among participants with higher diet quality in AHEI-stratified models [1.12 (1.02–1.23; p-trend = 0.04)], although cross-product terms were not statistically significant. Risks for total CVD by total UPF were similar in both BMI strata; the association was higher for CHD among those with overweight/obesity [HR: 1.22 (95% CI: 1.12–1.33], but interaction terms were not significant (Supplementary Table S8). Associations between total UPF intake and CVD or CHD persisted in the four-year lagged analyses (Supplementary Table S9).Fig. 1 Association between UPF intake (highest vs. lowest quintile) and cardiovascular disease in three US cohorts, excluding liquors, yoghurt, sugar-sweetened beverages, and processed meats. Cohort-specific estimates from the NHS (n = 75,735; 1984–2016), NHS II (n = 90,813; 1991–2017), and HPFS (n = 40,409; 1986–2016) were meta-analysed with fixed-effects models. Pooled hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for total cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke are presented. 1Multivariable Cox regression stratified by age in months and the calendar year in two-year intervals was used to estimate the associations between cumulatively-averaged UPF intake and CVD risk. The models were adjusted for race/ethnicity, marital status, working status, smoking status, quintiles of physical activity (MET-hours/week), sleep patterns (hours/day), family history of CVD, multivitamin use, aspirin use, NSAID use, menopausal hormone use status (women only), oral contraceptive use (women only), energy intake, BMI at baseline, hypertension at baseline, hypercholesterolemia at baseline, and diabetes at baseline. NHS and NHSII only included women, and HPFS only included men; therefore, cohort-specific models inherently controlled for sex. 2Hard liquors (e.g., whiskey, vodka, brandy, rum) were removed from the variable reflecting total UPF intake. 3Sugar-sweetened flavoured and artificially-sweetened yoghurt were removed from the variable reflecting total UPF intake. 4Both yoghurt and hard liquors were removed from the variable reflecting total UPF intake (notice that dairy desserts were included). 5Both ultra-processed sugar-sweetened beverages and meat were removed from the total UPF intake variable. Abbreviations: NHS, Nurses’ Health Study; HPFS, the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study; UPF, ultra-processed foods; UP, ultra-processed; CVD, cardiovascular disease; CHD, Coronary Heart Disease; NSAID, Non-steroidal-inflammatory drugs; BMI, body mass index.

Among UPF groups (Fig. 2; Supplementary Table S10), processed meats and sugar-sweetened beverages (Q5 vs. Q1) were significantly associated with a higher risk of the three outcomes. A higher intake of artificially-sweetened beverages was associated with greater CVD and CHD risks when models were further adjusted for time-varying BMI and dieting and weight loss behaviours. Intakes of savoury snacks and yoghurt/dairy-based desserts were inversely associated with total CVD and CHD risks. A higher total intake of bread and cereals was associated with lower stroke risk. Cold cereal intake was associated with a lower risk of CVD and CHD; greater consumption of refined bread was only associated with lower stroke risk. Hard liquor intake was associated with lower CHD risk.Fig. 2 Association between group-specific UPF intake (highest vs. lowest quintile) and cardiovascular disease in three US cohorts. Cohort-specific estimates from the NHS (n = 75,735; 1984–2016), NHS II (n = 90,813; 1991–2017), and HPFS (n = 40,409; 1986–2016) were meta-analysed with fixed-effects models. Pooled hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for total cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke are presented. Multivariable Cox regression stratified by age in months and the calendar year in two-year intervals was used to estimate the associations between cumulatively-averaged UPF group intake and CVD risk. All UPF groups were simultaneously included in the model as distinct covariables, adjusting for race/ethnicity, marital status, working status, smoking status, quintiles of physical activity (MET-hours/week), sleep patterns (hours/day), family history of CVD, multivitamin use, aspirin use, NSAID use, menopausal hormone use status (women only), oral contraceptive use (women only), energy intake, BMI at baseline, hypertension at baseline, hypercholesterolemia at baseline, and diabetes at baseline. NHS and NHSII only included women, and HPFS only included men; therefore, cohort-specific models inherently controlled for sex. ∗A separate model was fit to evaluate the effect of artificially-sweetened beverages, further adjusting for dieting and loss weight behaviours (i.e., self-report of intentional and unintentional weight loss, adherence to low-calorie diets, fasting, increases in exercise, use of pills, following weight loss programs, gastric bypass, and other methods) and time-varying BMI. Abbreviations: NHS, Nurses’ Health Study; HPFS, the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study; UPF, ultra-processed foods; CVD, cardiovascular disease; CHD, Coronary Heart Disease; NSAID, Non-steroidal-inflammatory drugs; BMI, body mass index ASBs: artificially sweetened beverages.

Systematic review and meta-analysis

Screening 2540 publications led to 19 cohort studies meeting inclusion criteria,16, 17, 18,64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79 plus the NHS, NHSII, and HPFS (Supplementary Fig. S11 and Table S11). The studies comprise 1,261,040 adults and 63,666 CVD cases (Supplementary Table S12). Participants’ age range was 18–91 years and follow-up duration was 5.2–32.0 years. Nine studies had UPF intake repeated measurements, nine were conducted in the US, and 13 utilised probabilistic sampling methods (vs. convenience sampling). UPF intake was operationalised as servings/frequency in 11 studies, diet weight percentage in seven, or percentage energy contribution in three studies. All studies used Cox regression to calculate risk estimates. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale score was 7.2 (Supplementary Table S13). Funnel plots and Egger’s tests revealed no risk of bias (Supplementary Figs. S12–S14).

In meta-analyses comparing the highest vs. lowest total UPF intake (Fig. 3), the pooled HRs for CVD, CHD, and stroke were 1.17 [95% CI: 1.11–1.24; I2: 76.4%; s-value > 13.3], 1.23 [95% CI: 1.12–1.34; I2: 79.8%; s-value > 13.3], and 1.09 [95% CI: 1.03–1.15; I2: 9.8%; s-value > 13.3], respectively. Leave-one-out meta-analyses (Supplementary Figs. S15–S17) detected that excluding the Zhong et al. study decreased the pooled HRs for CVD and CHD to 1.13 (1.09–1.18) and 1.17 (1.12–1.22), respectively; the weight of this study in CVD and CHD meta-analyses was 7.2% and 10.6%, respectively (Fig. 3). Stratification (Supplementary Figs. S18–S22) displayed differences in the pooled HRs for total CVD in US vs. non-US studies, using probabilistic sampling vs. not, and in studies with different UPF intake operationalisations; however, meta-regression coefficients were not statistically significant (Supplementary Table S14). According to NutriGrade (Supplementary Table S15), the meta-evidence was high-quality (score: 8.0) for CHD, moderate-quality (6.9) for CVD, and low-quality (5.9) for stroke. Follow-up duration <10 years, insufficient studies (<10 only for stroke), between-study heterogeneity ≥ 40%, and small measures of association reduced the quality of meta-evidence.Fig. 3 Random-effects meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies on the association of total UPF consumption (high vs. low) with CVD, CHD, and stroke risk. Top: Association between UPF intake and fatal and non-fatal CVD events; 95% CI for I2 = 64.5, 84.3; 95% CI for H2 = 2.8, 6.4. Middle: Association between UPF intake and fatal and non-fatal CHD events; 95% CI for I2 = 64.5, 88.4; 95% CI for H2 = 2.8, 8.7. Bottom: Association between UPF intake and fatal and non-fatal stroke events; 95% CI for I2 = 0.001, 68.2; 95% CI for H2 = 0.4, 3.1. Abbreviations. HR, hazard ratio; ML, maximum likelihood; CVD, cardiovascular disease; CHD, coronary heart disease; NHS, the Nurses’ Health Study; HPFS, the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study.

Discussion

Higher total UPF intake was adversely associated with higher risk of CVD and CHD in the NHS, NHSII, and HPFS, robustly in multiple sensitivity analyses. Pooling findings from 19 cohort studies16, 17, 18,64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79 provided a relevant amount of data (large s-values equivalent to small p-values) to strongly support evidence on adverse associations of total UPF intake with risk of CVD, CHD, and stroke. The quality of meta-evidence was deemed high for CHD, whose point estimate (1.23) and corresponding intervals (1.12–1.34) respectively surpassed or closely surrounded a clinically relevant measure of association (1.20).63 Although meta-evidence quality was moderate for CVD and low for stroke, these quality scores were largely penalized by research methodology, and their homogeneous directionality reflects plausible biological harm. Of note, divergent associations were observed for specific UPF groups in our cohorts. Sugar-sweetened beverages, processed meats, and artificially-sweetened beverages were associated with higher CVD and CHD risk. Conversely, ultra-processed savoury snacks, cold cereals, and yoghurt/dairy-based desserts were inversely associated with CVD and CHD risk. Ultra-processed bread and cold cereals were associated with lower stroke risk, and hard liquors with lower CHD risk.

Our findings suggest that UPF groups have differential contributions to cardiovascular risk, consistent with a study in the US showing an inverse association of breakfast cereals and adverse associations of processed meat and artificially-sweetened beverages with CVD.16 The divergent associations pattern may underlie the stronger associations of UPF consumption with CVD and CHD risk in the NHSII than in the other two cohorts. Indeed, the daily total calorie intake of NHSII participants had higher levels of sugar-sweetened beverages, processed meats, and artificially-sweetened beverages, and lower levels of yoghurt/dairy-based desserts and cold cereals, compared with the NHS and HPFS counterparts at the highest UPF intake category. Similar heterogeneous associations by UPF groups for diabetes22 and cancer-cardiometabolic multimorbidity79 have been observed in the US22 and Europe.79 These data suggest that UPF are not a homogeneous entity concerning their nutritional quality and role in cardiovascular risk.

Typical UPF (e.g., sugar-sweetened beverages, processed meats, fast foods) are energy-dense and high in added sugars, saturated fats, and sodium, established CVD risk factors.3, 4, 5 Albeit not focused on food processing, a large body of literature25,60 has consistently associated sugar-sweetened beverages and processed meats with CVD, similarly for artificially-sweetened beverages.25 Compounds introduced into UPF during production and packaging may also elevate CVD risk. Bisphenol-A in plastic or metallic containers is linked to glycometabolism disturbance6 and higher diabetes risk.9 Advanced glycation end products in fried bacon and margarines are associated with endothelial disruption.10 Acrylamide12 in breakfast cereals and bread, and monosodium glutamate13 in many UPF can promote atherosclerosis. Sulphites,14 emulsifiers,7 thickeners,8 and sweeteners11 are associated with cardiac tissue damage, metabolic syndrome-inducing microbiota alterations, inflammation, and pro-atherogenic apolipoproteins, respectively.

Conversely, the relatively high content of fibre, minerals, phenolic compounds, and other whole-grain ingredients in some ultra-processed bread, cereals,24 and savoury snacks (e.g., popcorn)24 may explain their inverse association with cardiovascular outcomes. Cold cereals are usually fortified with micronutrients, including B vitamins linked to lower homocysteine levels and stroke risk.80 Our results of lower CVD risk for yoghurt/dairy-based desserts agree with evidence suggesting neutral or positive cardiovascular benefits from dairy products not always meeting UPF characteristics, especially fermented plain yoghurt.81, 82, 83, 84 Despite their usually high saturated fat and added sugar content, probiotic bacteria or odd-chain fatty acids in yoghurt/dairy-based desserts may contribute to lower cardiovascular risk.59 Lastly, the inverse association of hard liquors with CHD aligns with existing evidence. Moderate alcohol consumption, regardless of beverage type [i.e., fermented (processed products: beer and wine) or distilled (UPF: spirits)], has been associated with lower CHD risk in some studies.85, 86, 87 Also, modest ethanol85 intake is associated with increased high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, insulin sensitivity, and modulation of inflammation.85

Our analysis holds two significant advantages over existing literature. First, the repeated assessments of diet and covariates over three decades of follow-up (the longest duration in the reviewed studies) captured within-person variation in total UPF intake and UPF group intakes and allowed controlling for time-varying confounding. Second, a large number of CVD cases, as compared with previous studies, facilitated sufficient statistical power to detect small to modest associations, which are particularly expected when deconstructing the total UPF intake variable and evaluating the associations of UPF groups with CVD risk. Furthermore, our results on the divergent associations across UPF groups replicate findings from a single previous study conducted in the US,16 strengthening the collective evidence. Of note, future research must undertake meticulously designed food-specific isocaloric replacement analyses88, 89, 90 to scrutinize the associations between the displacement of specific equivalent non-UPF by UPF groups and their role on CVD. These analyses will address one of the proposed concepts for reducing UPF intake, which is enabling substitution with less processed and healthier options, such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, and fish.

Still, some limitations exist. First, our food frequency questionnaires were not designed to capture food processing information. However, our iterative UPF classification process involved several data sources,33 only 4.4% of food frequency questionnaire items had an uncertain categorisation due to insufficient information,33 and our findings are robust to the inclusion of these items. Furthermore, food frequency questionnaires not constructed to identify Nova groups validly rank UPF consumption.91,92 Second, we were unable to assess the specific associations of ultra-processed yoghurt separately from dairy based-desserts throughout the entire follow-up as it was incorporated into food frequency questionnaires after the baseline, in 1994. Third, between-study heterogeneity regarding UPF operationalisation prevented us from conducting dose–response meta-analyses. Nevertheless, trend analyses in our cohorts provided data on the linear UPF-CVD association. Fourth, the generalizability of NHS, NHSII, and HPFS findings is limited, as the sample comprises health professionals mostly of white race and slightly higher socioeconomic status.26 The low prevalence of non-White participants (2.3% to 5.1%) in our cohorts prevented us from conducting stratified analyses by race or ethnicity. The UPF contribution to total energy intake in these cohorts (28.3–34.4%) was lower than that of the US adult population aged over 19 years (57.0%)2 in 2018. As UPF intake has been reportedly lower with increasing age93 and in the previous decades,2 these differences can be partially explained by the older age range of our cohorts, as well as by an earlier baseline period of statistical estimations (1984–1991). Furthermore, CVD rates differ by racial/ethnic groups in the US and several countries94, 95, 96, 97; UPF in these populations might have a differential composition, necessitating further studies with UPF group analyses. Fifth, statistical software limitations precluded us from assessing additive interaction and calculating corresponding point estimates and standard errors. Assessing this type of heterogeneity in the UPF-CVD relationship can be preferred in terms of both causality and public health98 and so should be assessed in future studies. Sixth, even with multivariable adjustments, unmeasured, measurement error-related, or residual confounding cannot be excluded in our observational design. Although we prevented overadjustment for major mediators via correct model specification and exposure operationalisation, other potential mediation effects of time-varying cofounders99 specific to our cohorts may have affected our cohort estimates. Finally, as in other studies, our HRs inherently possess limitations that preclude causal interpretations.100

Data from three US cohorts and the existing evidence16, 17, 18,64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79 suggest an adverse role of the consumption of total UPF as part of a dietary pattern in the risk of CVD, CHD, and stroke. Deconstructing the UPF classification provided more evidence to support the notion that the role of both food processing and nutritional quality in cardiovascular health shall be considered for individual UPF groups. Specifically, our findings suggest soft drinks and processed meats should be discouraged, given their consistent adverse association with CVD, CHD, and stroke. Reducing the content of sodium, saturated fats, added sugars, and cosmetic additives non-essential for human health in whole-grain bread, cold cereals, and some savoury snacks may enhance the otherwise nutritional value of these products in the US. Importantly, replication in racially/ethnically-diverse populations is needed to determine potential divergent associations in other populations, as they might reflect a differential quality of UPF that may need to be considered in nutritional advice and public health actions.

Contributors

The current study was conceptualized and designed by KM, JM, QS, and SAS-W. KM conducted data curation, formal analysis, wrote the original manuscript draft, and addressed editions suggested by the rest of the authors. QS, JM, WCW, and JEM oversaw all analyses, offering comprehensive insights to refine both principal and sensitivity analyses. KM and SLR directly accessed and verified the underlying data reported in the manuscript and conducted an internal technical review to ensure concordance between statistical software outputs and data presented in the manuscript, tables, and figures. JM and QS contributed equally and took primary responsibility for the final manuscript content, with JM coordinating the submission and peer review processes. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript, tables, and figures for pertinent subject matter knowledge content and approved the final version.

Data sharing statement

External investigators interested in accessing the resources of the studies need to submit a research plan as per the policies and guidelines for access to questionnaire data and other resources published on (https://nurseshealthstudy.org/researchers and https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hpfs/for-collaborators/). The Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), NHSII, and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) advisory committees will review the plan and data sharing will be facilitated by a data enclave or similar approaches.

Declaration of interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix ASupplementary data

Supplementary methods, Figs. S1–S24, and Tables S1–S15

Acknowledgements

Funding: The NHS, NHSII, and HPFS are supported by 10.13039/100000002 National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants UM1 CA186107 , P01 CA87969 , R01 CA49449 , R01 HL034594 , R01 HL088521 , U01 CA176726 , R01 CA67262 , U01 CA167552 , R01 HL035464 , R01 HL060712 , R01 DK120870 , and U01 HL145386 . This project was also supported by scholarships from the Mexican Council of Science and Technology (Spanish acronym: CONACYT), 10.13039/501100013174 Fundación México en Harvard , and 10.13039/100000002 NIH through the Harvard T.H. School of Public Health provided to KM. NK received fees from the 10.13039/100011893 Pan American Health Organization and Resolve to Save Lives for consulting activities unrelated to this research during its execution. The institution with which KJM is affiliated received a grant from the 10.13039/100016638 US Highbush Blueberry Council . The funding sources did not participate in designing or conducting the present study, nor in collecting, managing, analysing, interpretating the data, or submitting this study. None of the authors has been paid to write this article. Authors were not precluded from accessing data in the study, and they accept responsibility to submit for publication.

The authors express their gratitude to the participants and staff of The NHS, NHSII, and HPFS for their invaluable contributions to this research. The authors also thank The Channing Division of Network Medicine for their technical support on this project. Special acknowledgment is extended to the members of Dr Josiemer Mattei’s research team and close associates from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, including Dr Abrania Marrero, Dr Martha Tamez, Alan Espinosa, Areli Caballero-Gonzalez, Xiaolu Amelia Zhang Gross, and Dr Gabriela Rosa, for their insightful feedback during the presentation of preliminary research results.

Appendix A Supplementary data related to this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lana.2024.100859.
==== Refs
References

1 Monteiro C.A. Cannon G. Levy R.B. Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them Public Health Nutr 22 5 2019 936 941 10.1017/S1368980018003762 30744710
2 Juul F. Parekh N. Martinez-Steele E. Ultra-processed food consumption among US adults from 2001 to 2018 Am J Clin Nutr 115 1 2022 211 221 10.1093/ajcn/nqab305 34647997
3 Mozaffarian D. Dietary and policy priorities for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity Circulation 133 2 2016 187 225 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.018585 26746178
4 Hall K.D. Ayuketah A. Brychta R. Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: an inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake Cell Metab 30 1 2019 67 77 10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008 31105044
5 Roth G.A. Mensah G.A. Johnson C.O. Global burden of cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, 1990–2019 J Am Coll Cardiol 76 25 2020 2982 3021 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.010 33309175
6 Stojanoska M.M. Milosevic N. Milic N. The influence of phthalates and bisphenol A on the obesity development and glucose metabolism Disorders Endocrine 55 3 2017 666 681 10.1007/s12020-016-1158-4 27822670
7 Chassaing B. Koren O. Goodrich J.K. Dietary emulsifiers impact the mouse gut microbiota promoting colitis and metabolic syndrome Nature 519 7541 2015 92 96 10.1038/nature14232 25731162
8 Bhattacharyya S. O-Sullivan I. Katyal S. Exposure to the common food additive carrageenan leads to glucose intolerance, insulin resistance and inhibition of insulin signalling in HepG2 cells and C57BL/6J mice Diabetologia 55 1 2012 194 203 10.1007/s00125-011-2333-z 22011715
9 Sun Q. Cornelis M.C. Townsend M.K. Association of urinary concentrations of bisphenol A and phthalate metabolites with risk of type 2 diabetes: a prospective investigation in the nurses’ health study (NHS) and NHSII cohorts Environ Health Perspect 122 6 2014 616 623 10.1289/ehp.1307201 24633239
10 Uribarri J. Stirban A. Sander D. Single oral challenge by advanced glycation end products acutely impairs endothelial function in diabetic and nondiabetic subjects Diabetes Care 30 10 2007 2579 2582 10.2337/dc07-0320 17496238
11 Jang W. Jeoung N.H. Cho K.-H. Modified apolipoprotein (apo) A-I by artificial sweetener causes severe premature cellular senescence and atherosclerosis with impairment of functional and structural properties of apoA-I in lipid-free and lipid-bound state Mol Cells 31 5 2011 461 470 10.1007/s10059-011-1009-3 21533907
12 Naruszewicz M. Zapolska-Downar D. Kośmider A. Chronic intake of potato chips in humans increases the production of reactive oxygen radicals by leukocytes and increases plasma C-reactive protein: a pilot study Am J Clin Nutr 89 3 2009 773 777 10.3945/ajcn.2008.26647 19158207
13 Singh K. Ahluwalia P. Effect of monosodium glutamate on lipid peroxidation and certain antioxidant enzymes in cardiac tissue of alcoholic adult male mice J Cardiovasc Dis Res 3 1 2012 12 18 10.4103/0975-3583.91595 22346139
14 Zhang Q. Bai Y. Yang Z. The molecular mechanisms of sodium metabisulfite on the expression of KATP and L-Ca2+ channels in rat hearts Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 72 3 2015 440 446 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.05.021 26015265
15 Kim H. Hu E.A. Rebholz C.M. Ultra-processed food intake and mortality in the USA: results from the third national health and nutrition examination survey (NHANES III, 1988-1994) Public Health Nutr 22 10 2019 1777 1785 10.1017/S1368980018003890 30789115
16 Juul F. Vaidean G. Lin Y. Ultra-processed foods and incident cardiovascular disease in the framingham offspring study J Am Coll Cardiol 77 12 2021 1520 1531 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.01.047 33766258
17 Du S. Kim H. Rebholz C.M. Higher ultra-processed food consumption is associated with increased risk of incident coronary artery disease in the atherosclerosis risk in communities study J Nutr 151 12 2021 3746 3754 10.1093/jn/nxab285 34494108
18 Zhong G.C. Gu H.T. Peng Y. Association of ultra-processed food consumption with cardiovascular mortality in the US population: long-term results from a large prospective multicenter study Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activ 18 1 2021 1 14 10.1186/s12966-021-01081-3
19 Yuan L. Hu H. Li T. Dose-response meta-analysis of ultra-processed food with the risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality: evidence from prospective cohort studies Food Funct 14 6 2023 2586 2596 10.1039/d2fo02628g 36866803
20 Mendonça R. de D. Pimenta A.M. Gea A. Ultraprocessed food consumption and risk of overweight and obesity: the University of Navarra Follow-Up (SUN) cohort study Am J Clin Nutr 104 5 2016 1433 1440 10.3945/ajcn.116.135004 27733404
21 Mendonça R. de D. Lopes A.C.S. Pimenta A.M. Ultra-processed food consumption and the incidence of hypertension in a Mediterranean cohort: the Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra Project Am J Hypertens 30 4 2017 358 366 10.1093/ajh/hpw137 27927627
22 Chen Z. Khandpur N. Desjardins C. Ultra-processed food consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: three large prospective U.S. Cohort studies Diabetes Care 46 7 2023 1335 1344 10.2337/dc22-1993 36854188
23 Mozaffarian D. Wilson P.W.F. Kannel W.B. Beyond established and novel risk factors Circulation 117 23 2008 3031 3038 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.738732 18541753
24 Seal C.J. Jones A.R. Whitney A.D. Whole grains uncovered Nutr Bull 31 2 2006 129 137 10.1111/j.1467-3010.2006.00559.x
25 Narain A. Kwok C.S. Mamas M.A. Soft drinks and sweetened beverages and the risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis Int J Clin Pract 70 10 2016 791 805 10.1111/ijcp.12841 27456347
26 Bao Y. Bertoia M.L. Lenart E.B. Origin, methods, and evolution of the three nurses’ health studies Am J Public Health 106 9 2016 1573 1581 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303338 27459450
27 Rimm E.B. Giovannucci E.L. Willett W.C. Prospective study of alcohol consumption and risk of coronary disease in men Lancet 338 8765 1991 464 468 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90542-w 1678444
28 Du Y. Oh C. No J. Associations between sarcopenia and metabolic risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Obes Metab Syndr 27 3 2018 175 185 10.7570/jomes.2018.27.3.175 31089560
29 Li C. Yu K. Shyh-Chang N. Circulating factors associated with sarcopenia during ageing and after intensive lifestyle intervention J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 10 3 2019 586 600 10.1002/jcsm.12417 30969486
30 Wehling H. Lusher J. People with a body mass index ⩾30 under-report their dietary intake: a systematic review J Health Psychol 24 14 2019 2042 2059 10.1177/1359105317714318 28810493
31 Hu F.B. Rimm E. Smith-Warner S.A. Reproducibility and validity of dietary patterns assessed with a food-frequency questionnaire Am J Clin Nutr 69 2 1999 243 249 10.1093/ajcn/69.2.243 9989687
32 Rimm E.B. Giovannucci E.L. Stampfer M.J. Reproducibility and validity of an expanded self-administered semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire among male health professionals Am J Epidemiol 135 10 1992 1114 1126 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116211 1632423
33 Khandpur N. Rossato S. Drouin-Chartier J.P. Categorising ultra-processed foods in large-scale cohort studies: evidence from the nurses’ health studies, the health professionals follow-up study, and the growing up today study J Nutr Sci 10 2021 e77 10.1017/jns.2021.72 34589209
34 Chiuve S.E. Fung T.T. Rimm E.B. Alternative dietary indices both strongly predict risk of chronic disease J Nutr 142 6 2012 1009 1018 10.3945/jn.111.157222 22513989
35 Juan J. Liu G. Willett W.C. Whole grain consumption and risk of ischemic stroke Stroke 48 12 2017 3203 3209 10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.018979 29127271
36 Hu Y. Li Y. Sampson L. Lignan intake and risk of coronary heart disease J Am Coll Cardiol 78 7 2021 666 678 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.05.049 34384548
37 Rose G.A. Blackburn H. Cardiovascular survey methods Monogr Ser World Health Organ 56 1968 1 188 Available from: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/42569/9241545763_eng.pdf?sequence=1
38 Curb J.D. Mctiernan A. Heckbert S.R. Outcomes ascertainment and adjudication methods in the women’s health initiative Ann Epidemiol 13 9 2003 S122 S128 10.1016/S1047-2797(03)00048-6 14575944
39 Walker A.E. Robins M. Weinfeld F.D. The national survey of stroke. Clinical findings Stroke 12 2 Pt 2 Suppl 1 1981 I13 I44 7222164
40 Rich-Edwards J.W. Corsano K.A. Stampfer M.J. Test of the national death index and equifax nationwide death search Am J Epidemiol 140 11 1994 1016 1019 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117191 7985649
41 Greenland S. Mansournia M.A. Joffe M. To curb research misreporting, replace significance and confidence by compatibility: a Preventive Medicine Golden Jubilee article Prev Med 164 2022 107127 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107127
42 Qiu W. Rosner B. Measurement error correction for the cumulative average model in the survival analysis of nutritional data: application to Nurses’ Health Study Lifetime Data Anal 16 1 2010 136 153 10.1007/s10985-009-9124-6 19757039
43 Hu F.B. Stampfer M.J. Manson J.E. Dietary fat intake and the risk of coronary heart disease in women N Engl J Med 337 21 1997 1491 1499 10.1056/NEJM199711203372102 9366580
44 Bernstein A.M. Rosner B.A. Willett W.C. Cereal fiber and coronary heart disease: a comparison of modeling approaches for repeated dietary measurements, intermediate outcomes, and long follow-up Eur J Epidemiol 26 11 2011 877 886 10.1007/s10654-011-9626-x 22041998
45 Song M. Zhou X. Pazaris M. The missing covariate indicator method is nearly valid almost always arXiv 2021 10.48550/arXiv.2111.00138 [preprint]
46 Scrinis G. Monteiro C. From ultra-processed foods to ultra-processed dietary patterns Nat Food 3 9 2022 671 673 10.1038/s43016-022-00599-4 37118150
47 Hu F.B. Dietary pattern analysis: a new direction in nutritional epidemiology Curr Opin Lipidol 13 1 2002 3 9 10.1097/00041433-200202000-00002 11790957
48 Durrleman S. Simon R. Flexible regression models with cubic splines Stat Med 8 5 1989 551 561 10.1002/sim.4780080504 2657958
49 VanderWeele T.J. Principles of confounder selection Eur J Epidemiol 34 3 2019 211 219 10.1007/s10654-019-00494-6 30840181
50 Willett W. Implications of total energy intake for epidemiologic analyses Nutritional epidemiology 2012 Oxford University Press 260 286 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199754038.003.0011
51 Mehta L.S. Velarde G.P. Lewey J. Cardiovascular disease risk factors in women: the impact of race and ethnicity: a scientific statement from the American heart association Circulation 147 19 2023 1471 1487 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001139 37035919
52 Vinther J.L. Conklin A.I. Wareham N.J. Marital transitions and associated changes in fruit and vegetable intake: findings from the population-based prospective EPIC-Norfolk cohort, UK Soc Sci Med 157 2016 120 126 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.004 27082023
53 King D.E. Xiang J. Retirement and Healthy lifestyle: a national health and nutrition examination survey (NHANES) data report J Am Board Fam Med 30 2 2017 213 219 10.3122/jabfm.2017.02.160244 28379828
54 Lloyd-Jones D.M. Allen N.B. Anderson C.A.M. Life’s essential 8: updating and enhancing the American heart association’s construct of cardiovascular health: a presidential advisory from the American heart association Circulation 146 5 2022 e18 e43 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001078 35766027
55 Mangione C.M. Barry M.J. Nicholson W.K. Vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer JAMA 327 23 2022 2326 10.1001/jama.2022.8970 35727271
56 Campbell C.L. Smyth S. Montalescot G. Aspirin dose for the prevention of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review JAMA 297 18 2007 2018 2024 10.1001/jama.297.18.2018 17488967
57 Schjerning A.-M. McGettigan P. Gislason G. Cardiovascular effects and safety of (non-aspirin) NSAIDs Nat Rev Cardiol 17 9 2020 574 584 10.1038/s41569-020-0366-z 32322101
58 Kleinbaum D.G. Survival analysis: a self-learning text 3rd ed. 3rd ed. 2011 Springer Nature Netherlands 10.1007/978-1-4419-6646-9
59 Yu E. Hu F.B. Dairy products, dairy fatty acids, and the prevention of cardiometabolic disease: a review of recent evidence Curr Atheroscler Rep 20 5 2018 1 9 10.1007/s11883-018-0724-z 29340805
60 Micha R. Wallace S.K. Mozaffarian D. Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus Circulation 121 21 2010 2271 2283 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.924977 20479151
61 Yang Q. Gain weight by “going diet?” Artificial sweeteners and the neurobiology of sugar cravings: neuroscience 2010 Yale J Biol Med 83 2 2010 101 108 Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/pdf/yjbm_83_2_101.pdf 20589192
62 Page M.J. McKenzie J.E. Bossuyt P.M. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews BMJ 372 2021 n71 10.1136/bmj.n71
63 Schwingshackl L. Knüppel S. Schwedhelm C. Perspective: NutriGrade: a scoring system to assess and judge the meta-evidence of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in nutrition research Adv Nutr 7 6 2016 994 1004 10.3945/an.116.013052 28140319
64 Srour B. Fezeu L.K. Kesse-Guyot E. Ultra-processed food intake and risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective cohort study (NutriNet-Santé) BMJ 365 2019 l1451 10.1136/bmj.l1451
65 Rico-Campà A. Martínez-González M.A. Alvarez-Alvarez I. Association between consumption of ultra-processed foods and all cause mortality: SUN prospective cohort study BMJ 365 2019 l1949 10.1136/bmj.l1949 31142450
66 Dehghan M. Mente A. Rangarajan S. Ultra-processed foods and mortality: analysis from the prospective urban and rural epidemiology study Am J Clin Nutr 117 1 2023 55 63 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2022.10.014 36789944
67 Bonaccio M. Di Castelnuovo A. Ruggiero E. Joint association of food nutritional profile by Nutri-Score front-of-pack label and ultra-processed food intake with mortality: moli-sani prospective cohort study BMJ 378 2022 e070688 10.1136/bmj-2022-070688
68 Sullivan V.K. Appel L.J. Anderson C.A.M. Ultraprocessed foods and kidney disease progression, mortality, and cardiovascular disease risk in the CRIC study Am J Kidney Dis 82 2 2023 202 212 10.1053/j.ajkd.2023.01.452 37028638
69 Li H. Wang Y. Sonestedt E. Associations of ultra-processed food consumption, circulating protein biomarkers, and risk of cardiovascular disease BMC Med 21 1 2023 415 10.1186/s12916-023-03111-2 37919714
70 Kityo A. Lee S.-A. The intake of ultra-processed foods, all-cause, cancer and cardiovascular mortality in the Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study-Health Examinees (KoGES-HEXA) cohort PLoS One 18 5 2023 e0285314 10.1371/journal.pone.0285314
71 Wang L. Pan X.-F. Munro H.M. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and all-cause and cause-specific mortality in the Southern Community Cohort Study Clin Nutr 42 10 2023 1866 1874 10.1016/j.clnu.2023.08.012 37625316
72 Li H. Li S. Yang H. Association of ultra-processed food intake with cardiovascular and respiratory disease multimorbidity: a prospective cohort study Mol Nutr Food Res 67 11 2023 2200628 10.1002/mnfr.202200628
73 Zhao Y. Chen W. Li J. Ultra-processed food consumption and mortality: three cohort studies in the United States and United Kingdom Am J Prev Med 66 2 2024 315 323 10.1016/j.amepre.2023.09.005 37690589
74 Kermani-Alghoraishi M. Behrouzi A. Hassannejad R. Ultra-processed food consumption and cardiovascular events rate: an analysis from Isfahan Cohort Study (ICS) Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 34 6 2024 1438 1447 10.1016/j.numecd.2024.02.015 38555244
75 Jalali M. Bahadoran Z. Mirmiran P. Higher ultra-processed food intake is associated with an increased incidence risk of cardiovascular disease: the Tehran lipid and glucose study Nutr Metab 21 1 2024 14 10.1186/s12986-024-00788-x
76 Pant A. Gribbin S. Machado P. Ultra-processed foods and incident cardiovascular disease and hypertension in middle-aged women Eur J Nutr 63 3 2024 713 725 10.1007/s00394-023-03297-4 38147150
77 Hang D. Du M. Wang L. Ultra-processed food consumption and mortality among patients with stages I–III colorectal cancer: a prospective cohort study EClinicalMedicine 71 2024 102572 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102572
78 Torres-Collado L. Rychter A. González-Palacios S. A high consumption of ultra-processed foods is associated with higher total mortality in an adult Mediterranean population Clin Nutr 43 3 2024 739 746 10.1016/j.clnu.2024.01.014 38320465
79 Cordova R. Viallon V. Fontvieille E. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and risk of multimorbidity of cancer and cardiometabolic diseases: a multinational cohort study Lancet Reg Health Eur 35 2023 100771 10.1016/j.lanepe.2023.100771 38115963
80 Hankey G.J. B vitamins for stroke prevention Stroke Vasc Neurol 3 2 2018 51 58 10.1136/svn-2018-000156 30022794
81 Bhupathi V. Mazariegos M. Cruz Rodriguez J.B. Dairy intake and risk of cardiovascular disease Curr Cardiol Rep 22 3 2020 11 10.1007/s11886-020-1263-0 31997094
82 Sellem L. Srour B. Jackson K.G. Consumption of dairy products and CVD risk: results from the French prospective cohort NutriNet-Santé Br J Nutr 127 5 2022 752 762 10.1017/S0007114521001422 33910667
83 Giosuè A. Calabrese I. Vitale M. Consumption of dairy foods and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review Nutrients 14 4 2022 831 10.3390/nu14040831 35215479
84 Zhang K. Chen X. Zhang L. Fermented dairy foods intake and risk of cardiovascular diseases: a meta-analysis of cohort studies Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 60 7 2020 1189 1194 10.1080/10408398.2018.1564019 30652490
85 Mukamal K.J. Jensen M.K. Grønbæk M. Drinking frequency, mediating biomarkers, and risk of myocardial infarction in women and men Circulation 112 10 2005 1406 1413 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.537704 16129796
86 Imhof A. Woodward M. Doering A. Overall alcohol intake, beer, wine, and systemic markers of inflammation in western Europe: results from three MONICA samples (Augsburg, Glasgow, Lille) Eur Heart J 25 23 2004 2092 2100 10.1016/j.ehj.2004.09.032 15571824
87 Brien S.E. Ronksley P.E. Turner B.J. Effect of alcohol consumption on biological markers associated with risk of coronary heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional studies BMJ 342 2011 d636 10.1136/bmj.d636
88 Ibsen D.B. Laursen A.S.D. Würtz A.M.L. Food substitution models for nutritional epidemiology Am J Clin Nutr 113 2 2021 294 303 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa315 33300036
89 Gomes F.S. Rezende L.F.M. Schlüssel M. Comment on Chen et al. ultra-processed food consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: three large prospective U.S. Cohort studies. Diabetes Care 2023;46:1335-1344 Diabetes Care 47 2 2024 e22 e23 10.2337/dc23-1837 38241498
90 Chen Z. Khandpur N. Drouin-Chartier J.-P. Response to comment on Chen et al. ultra-processed food consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: three large prospective U.S. Cohort studies. Diabetes Care 2023;46:1335-1344 Diabetes Care 47 2 2024 e24 e25 10.2337/dci23-0088 38241494
91 Oviedo-Solís C.I. Monterrubio-Flores E.A. Rodríguez-Ramírez S. A semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire has relative validity to identify groups of NOVA food classification system among Mexican adults Front Nutr 9 2022 737432 10.3389/fnut.2022.737432
92 Oviedo-Solís C.I. Monterrubio-Flores E.A. Cediel G. Relative validity of a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire to estimate dietary intake according to the NOVA classification in Mexican children and adolescents J Acad Nutr Diet 122 6 2022 1129 1140 10.1016/j.jand.2021.11.002 34763139
93 Baraldi L.G. Martinez Steele E. Canella D.S. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and associated sociodemographic factors in the USA between 2007 and 2012: evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional study BMJ Open 8 3 2018 e020574 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020574
94 Graham G. Disparities in cardiovascular disease risk in the United States Curr Cardiol Rev 11 3 2015 238 245 10.2174/1573403X11666141122220003 25418513
95 Chiu M. Austin P.C. Manuel D.G. Comparison of cardiovascular risk profiles among ethnic groups using population health surveys between 1996 and 2007 Can Med Assoc J 182 8 2010 E301 E310 10.1503/cmaj.091676 20403888
96 Razieh C. Zaccardi F. Miksza J. Differences in the risk of cardiovascular disease across ethnic groups: UK Biobank observational study Nutr Metabol Cardiovasc Dis 32 11 2022 2594 2602 10.1016/j.numecd.2022.08.002
97 Kist J.M. Smit G.W.G. Mairuhu A.T.A. Large health disparities in cardiovascular death in men and women, by ethnicity and socioeconomic status in an urban based population cohort EClinicalMedicine 40 2021 101120 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101120
98 VanderWeele T.J. Knol M.J. A tutorial on interaction Epidemiol Methods 3 1 2014 33 72 10.1515/em-2013-0005
99 Mansournia M.A. Etminan M. Danaei G. Handling time varying confounding in observational research BMJ 359 2017 j4587 10.1136/bmj.j4587
100 Hernán M.A. The hazards of hazard ratios Epidemiology 21 1 2010 13 15 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c1ea43 20010207
