4.5 Article

Sex differences in cardiovascular risk, lifestyle, and psychological factors in patients with type 2 diabetes: the Fukuoka Diabetes Registry

期刊

BIOLOGY OF SEX DIFFERENCES
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13293-023-00517-8

关键词

Cardiovascular risk factor; Diabetes; Lifestyle; Psychosocial factor; Sex difference

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found sex differences in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes, with women being less likely to achieve recommended cardiovascular risk factor levels, and more likely to have unhealthy lifestyle and psychological factors.
BackgroundThe excess risk of cardiovascular diseases associated with diabetes is greater in women than in men. The present study aimed to examine sex differences in the control of cardiovascular risk factors, as well as lifestyle and psychological factors, in patients with type 2 diabetes.MethodsA total of 4923 Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes were included in this cross-sectional study. Female/male differences in cardiovascular risk factor levels, and corresponding odds ratios for achieving recommended ranges for preventing cardiovascular diseases and having unhealthy lifestyle and psychological factors were computed by linear and logistic regression models.ResultsWomen were less likely than men to achieve recommended ranges for glycated hemoglobin, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and obesity-related anthropometric indices such as body mass index and waist circumference, but were more likely than men to be on target for high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides. Women were also more likely than men to have an unhealthy lifestyle and psychological factors, including less dietary fiber intake, less leisure-time physical activity, shorter sleep duration, more constipation, and more depressive symptoms. Similar findings were observed when the participants were subgrouped by age (< 65 and >= 65 years) and past history of cardiovascular disease.ConclusionsWe observed significant sex differences for a range of cardiovascular risk factors, as well as lifestyle and psychological factors, suggesting the importance of adopting a sex-specific approach for the daily clinical management of diabetes. Plain Language SummaryDiabetes increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases, and growing evidence suggests that the risk increases more in women than men. Differences between the sexes in terms of the control of risk factors have been proposed to explain this association. Although ethnic and regional differences in the management of cardiovascular risk factors have been reported, most evidence has come from Western countries, and evidence from Asia is limited. Given the differences in health care systems, as well as cultural and sociological backgrounds, it is important to clarify the sex differences in the management of cardiovascular risk factors, lifestyle, and psychological factors in order to incorporate appropriate sex-specific approaches into public health policies.The present study comprehensively assessed sex differences in a wide range of cardiovascular risk factors, as well as lifestyle and psychological factors in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. The results showed that women were less likely than men to achieve recommended ranges for glycemic control, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol and non-high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, as well as obesity-related anthropometric indices, but were more likely to be on target for high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol and triglycerides. In addition, women were more likely to have unhealthy lifestyle and psychological factors, such as less dietary fiber intake, less physical activity, shorter sleep duration, and more constipation, and depressive symptoms. These results suggest the need for a comprehensive and sex-specific approach for the management of cardiovascular risk factors, as well as lifestyle and psychological factors, to reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases in patients with diabetes.

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

4.5
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