3.9 Article

Racial disparities in cardiovascular risk factors among diagnosed hypertensive subjects

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jash.2011.03.005

关键词

Cardiovascular risk factors; racial disparities; cardiovascular disease; hypertension control; blood pressure

资金

  1. RDC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Racial disparities in cardiovascular disease (CVD) have become a matter of national concern. We investigated racial disparities and trends in glycosylated hemoglobin, high-density lipoprotein (HDL), C-reactive protein, plasma homocysteine, albuminuria, and other risk factors among 4758 diagnosed hypertensive subjects age 18 years or older from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2006. Compared with non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics, and non-Hispanic blacks were more likely to have uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) (Hispanics odds ratio [OR]: 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21-2.07; blacks OR: 1.42, 95% Cl: 0.21-1.67), elevated glycosylated hemoglobin (Hispanics OR: 2.70, 95% Cl: 1.89-3.87; blacks OR: 2.17, 95% CI: 1.70-2.77), albuminuria (Hispanics OR: 2.36, 95% CI: 1.71-3.27; blacks OR: 1.80, 95% Cl: 1.47-2.20), and less likely to have central obesity (Hispanics OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.51-0.91; blacks OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.58-0.84). Blacks had lower risks of elevated serum cholesterol (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.67-0.98) and low HDL (OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.61-0.94) than whites. The risk of high serum homocysteine was lower in Hispanics and higher in blacks compared with whites (Hispanics OR: 0.64, 95% Cl: 0.46-0.90; blacks OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.14-1.63). These results highlight the need for targeted interventions to aggressively treat uncontrolled BP, elevated glycosylated hemoglobin in Hispanic and black hypertensive subjects, and high serum homocysteine in blacks, to reduce disparities in CVD risk factors and CVD-associated morbidity and mortality. J Am Soc Hypertens 2011;5(4):239-248. Published by Elsevier Inc on behalf of American Society of Hypertension.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据