4.6 Article

Sex differences in the associations of obstructive sleep apnoea with epidemiological factors

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 51, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02421-2017

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute of Health [UM1 CA186107, UM1 CA176726, UM1 CA167552]
  2. American Heart Association Postdoctoral Fellowship (Founders Affiliate) Award [16POST27480007]
  3. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [UM1CA186107, UM1CA167552, UM1CA176726] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite the well-known male predominance in the prevalence of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), sex differences in the associations between OSA and a comprehensive range of epidemiological factors remain less clear. We examined the prevalence of self-reported OSA in 143326 females (age 48-93 years) from the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and NHS-II and 22896 males from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (age 65-101 years) in 2012-2013. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the sex-specific prevalence odds ratios (pOR) and 95% confidence intervals of OSA by demographic, anthropometric, lifestyle and comorbidity factors. The overall prevalence of self-reported OSA was 6.4% in females and 13.8% in males. After mutual adjustment, the associations of OSA with physical inactivity, hypertension and daytime sleepiness were stronger in females, whereas the associations with waist circumference and witnessed apnoea were stronger in males (p-heterogeneity <0.01). There were qualitative sex differences in the associations with age (pOR per 5-year increment in females 0.95, 95% CI 0.94-0.96, and males 1.04, 1.01-1.08; p-heterogeneity <0.0001) and marital status (pOR for married versus other in females 0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.89, and males 1.11, 0.99-1.25; p-heterogeneity <0.0001). Substantial sex differences exist in the associations with various factors, suggesting sex-specific mechanisms in OSA.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available