Iqbal · The American journal of clinical nutrition 2021 · prospective cohort study · n=134297

Associations of unprocessed and processed meat intake with mortality and cardiovascular disease in 21 countries [Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) Study]: a prospective cohort study.

Cited 94 times in the scientific literature.

Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study

Prospective cohort study with multivariable survival analysis

PubMed 33787869 · doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqaa448 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study followed 134,297 individuals from 21 low-, middle-, and high-income countries over a median of 9.5 years. Dietary intake of unprocessed red meat, poultry, and processed meat was measured using country-specific validated food frequency questionnaires (FFQs). The primary outcomes were total mortality and major cardiovascular disease (CVD). Hazard ratios were estimated using multivariable Cox frailty models with random intercepts.

What was found

During 9.5 years of follow-up, 7,789 deaths and 6,976 major CVD events were documented. Higher unprocessed red meat intake (≥250 g/wk vs. <50 g/wk) showed no significant association with total mortality (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.02; P-trend = 0.14) or major CVD (HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.92, 1.11; P-trend = 0.72). Poultry intake also showed no significant association with these outcomes. In contrast, higher processed meat intake (≥150 g/wk vs. 0 g/wk) was significantly associated with higher risk of total mortality (HR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.08, 2.10; P-trend = 0.009) and major CVD (HR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.98; P-trend = 0.004).

Why it matters

This study differentiates processed meat from unprocessed red meat across a diverse multinational cohort, showing adverse mortality and cardiovascular associations specifically for processed meat.

Limits

Dietary exposure was based on self-reported food frequency questionnaires, which carry inherent measurement error and recall bias. As an observational cohort study, residual confounding from socioeconomic status, lifestyle, or dietary patterns cannot be ruled out. The abstract does not report repeat dietary assessments over time.

Cited by