H M Colhoun1, M B Rubens, S R Underwood, J H Fuller. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Royal Free and University College London Medical School, United Kingdom. helen@public-health.ucl.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the gender difference in coronary artery calcification, a measure of atherosclerotic plaque burden, is lost in type 1 diabetic patients, and whether abnormalities in established coronary heart disease risk factors explain this. BACKGROUND: Type 1 diabetes abolishes the gender difference in coronary heart disease mortality because it is associated with a greater elevation of coronary disease risk in women than men. The pathophysiological basis of this is not understood. METHODS: Coronary artery calcification and coronary risk factors were compared in 199 type 1 diabetic patients and 201 nondiabetic participants of similar age (30 to 55 years) and gender (50% female) distribution. Only one subject had a history of coronary disease. Calcification was measured with electron beam computed tomography. RESULTS: In nondiabetic participants there was a large gender difference in calcification prevalence (men 54%, women 21%, odds ratio 4.5, p < 0.001), half of which was explained by established risk factors (odds ratio after adjustment = 2.2). Diabetes was associated with a greatly increased prevalence of calcification in women (47%), but not men (52%), so that the gender difference in calcification was lost (p = 0.002 for the greater effect of diabetes on calcification in women than men). On adjustment for risk factors, diabetes remained associated with a threefold higher odds ratio of calcification in women than men (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In type 1 diabetes coronary artery calcification is greatly increased in women and the gender difference in calcification is lost. Little of this is explained by known coronary risk factors.
OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the gender difference in coronary artery calcification, a measure of atherosclerotic plaque burden, is lost in type 1 diabeticpatients, and whether abnormalities in established coronary heart disease risk factors explain this. BACKGROUND: Type 1 diabetes abolishes the gender difference in coronary heart disease mortality because it is associated with a greater elevation of coronary disease risk in women than men. The pathophysiological basis of this is not understood. METHODS:Coronary artery calcification and coronary risk factors were compared in 199 type 1 diabeticpatients and 201 nondiabetic participants of similar age (30 to 55 years) and gender (50% female) distribution. Only one subject had a history of coronary disease. Calcification was measured with electron beam computed tomography. RESULTS: In nondiabetic participants there was a large gender difference in calcification prevalence (men 54%, women 21%, odds ratio 4.5, p < 0.001), half of which was explained by established risk factors (odds ratio after adjustment = 2.2). Diabetes was associated with a greatly increased prevalence of calcification in women (47%), but not men (52%), so that the gender difference in calcification was lost (p = 0.002 for the greater effect of diabetes on calcification in women than men). On adjustment for risk factors, diabetes remained associated with a threefold higher odds ratio of calcification in women than men (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In type 1 diabetes coronary artery calcification is greatly increased in women and the gender difference in calcification is lost. Little of this is explained by known coronary risk factors.
Authors: Ying Zhang; Alicia J Jenkins; Arpita Basu; Julie A Stoner; Maria F Lopes-Virella; Richard L Klein; Timothy J Lyons Journal: J Lipid Res Date: 2015-12-09 Impact factor: 5.922
Authors: Janet K Snell-Bergeon; Dana Dabelea; Lorraine G Ogden; John E Hokanson; Gregory L Kinney; James Ehrlich; Marian Rewers Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2008-03-18 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: David M Maahs; John E Hokanson; Hong Wang; Gregory L Kinney; Janet K Snell-Bergeon; Ashley East; Bryan C Bergman; Irene E Schauer; Marian Rewers; Robert H Eckel Journal: Diabetes Date: 2010-04-14 Impact factor: 9.461