The gender gap in coronary heart disease mortality: is there a difference between blacks and whites?

Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Journal of Women's Health (Impact Factor: 1.9). 03/2005; 14(2):117-27. DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2005.14.117
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The gender difference (gender gap) in mortality due to coronary heart disease (CHD) decreases with age. This relationship has not been well characterized in diverse populations.
To examine the gender gap in CHD mortality across age groups and to compare the age dependency of the gender gap between blacks and whites, we conducted a prospective cohort study combining data from 9 U.S. epidemiological studies (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study [ARIC], Charleston Heart Study, Evans County Study, Framingham Heart Study [original and offspring cohorts], National Health Examination Follow-up Study [NHEFS], Rancho Bernardo Study, San Antonio Heart Study, and Tecumseh Community Health Study). Baseline examinations were performed between 1958 and 1990 (depending on the study), and mean follow-up was 13.7 years in general communities in several U.S. geographic areas. We included 39,614 subjects >30 years and free of cardiovascular disease (CVD) at baseline (18% blacks, 37% men). Completion of follow-up was >97% for all studies. As the main outcome measures, age-specific CHD mortality rates and male/female CHD mortality hazard ratios were calculated using Cox hazards regression.
During 542,605 person-years of follow-up, 2,812 CHD deaths were observed (18% in blacks, 46% in men). At age 45, white men were at a 6-fold increased risk compared with white women (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 4.6-7.9), whereas black men had a 2-fold increased risk of fatal CHD compared with black women (1.4-3.6). At age 95, men and women were at equal risk in both whites (0.9-1.4) and blacks (0.7-1.6). The difference in the age dependency of the gender gap between blacks and whites was significant (p < 0.0001).
The gender difference in CHD mortality was more pronounced in whites than in blacks at younger ages. This discrepancy was not explained by adjustment for CHD risk factors and suggests that other factors may be responsible for the ethnic variation in the gender gap.

1 Follower
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Obesity and ageing are emerging issues in the management of captive primates, including Chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. Studies on humans show that obesity and old age can independently increase the risk of inflammatory-associated diseases indicated by elevated levels of pro-inflammatory cells and proteins in the blood of older or obese compared to levels in younger or non-obese individuals. In humans, sex can influence the outcomes of these risks. Health management of these problems in chimpanzee populations requires an understanding of similarities and differences of factors influencing inflammatory disease risks in humans and in chimpanzees. We examined the relationship between age, sex and Body Mass Index (BMI) with hematological biomarkers of inflammatory disease risk established for humans which include the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and neutrophil, white blood cell (WBC), platelet microparticle and platelet counts. We found that higher values of NLR, neutrophil count and platelet microparticle count were associated with higher BMI values and older age indicating increased inflammation risk in these groups; a similar pattern to humans. There was a strong sex by age interaction on inflammation risk, with older males more at risk than older females. In contrast to human studies, total WBC count was not influenced by BMI, but like humans, WBC and platelet counts were lower in older individuals compared to younger individuals. Our findings are similar to those of humans and suggest that further insight on managing chimpanzees can be gained from extensive studies of ageing and obesity in humans. We suggest that managing BMI should be an integral part of health management in captive chimpanzee populations in order to partially reduce the risk of diseases associated with inflammation. These results also highlight parallels in inflammation risk between humans and chimpanzees and have implications for understanding the evolution of inflammation related diseases in apes.
    PLoS ONE 08/2014; 9(8):e104602. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0104602 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality for U.S. women. Racial minorities are a particularly vulnerable population. The increasing female veteran population has an higher prevalence of certain cardiovascular risk factors compared with non-veteran women; however, little is known about gender and racial differences in cardiovascular risk factor control among veterans. Methods We used analysis of variance, adjusting for age, to compare gender and racial differences in three risk factors that predispose to CVD (diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia) in a cohort of high-risk veterans eligible for enrollment in a clinical trial, including 23,955 men and 1,010 women. Findings Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) values were higher in women veterans than men with age-adjusted estimated mean values of 111.7 versus 97.6 mg/dL (p < .01). Blood pressures (BPs) were higher among African-American than White female veterans with age-adjusted estimated mean systolic BPs of 136.3 versus 133.5 mmHg, respectively (p < .01), and diastolic BPs of 82.4 versus 78.9 mmHg (p < .01). African-American veterans with diabetes had worse BP, LDL values, and hemoglobin A1c levels, although the differences were only significant among men. Conclusions Female veterans have higher LDL cholesterol levels than male veterans and African-American veterans have higher BP, LDL cholesterol, and A1c levels than Whites after adjusting for age. Further examination of CVD gender and racial disparities in this population may help to develop targeted treatments and strategies applicable to the general population.
    Women s Health Issues 10/2014; 24(5):477–483. DOI:10.1016/j.whi.2014.05.005 · 1.61 Impact Factor


Available from