Akranm Abuful1, Yori Gidron, Yaakov Henkin. 1. Cardiology Department, Soroka University Medical Center and Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While much of the gender difference in the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) results from the fact that the women being treated are older and have more comorbidities, it remains to be established whether a true gender bias exists. We compared physicians' attitudes and practice toward preventive therapy in men and women with CAD. HYPOTHESIS: Physicians perceive the prevention of CAD in men as more important than in women. METHODS: In the "attitude study," we obtained data on the attitudes of 172 physicians toward treatment, using hypothetical case histories of 58-year-old male and postmenopausal female patients with identical clinical and laboratory data and mild coronary atherosclerosis on angiography. In the "actual practice study," we evaluated the lipoprotein levels and prescription of lipid-lowering medications from medical records of 344 male and female patients with angiographic evidence of CAD. RESULTS: In the hypothetical case histories, physicians in general considered the male patient to be at higher risk and prescribed aspirin (91 vs. 77%, p < 0.01) and lipid-lowering medications (67 vs. 54%, p < 0.07) more often for the male patient. Evaluation of medical charts of patients with CAD revealed that in patients with baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol > 110 mg/dl, 77% of the males received a lipid-lowering medication, compared with only 47% of the female patients (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence for a gender bias in the attitude as well as in actual practice of secondary prevention toward patients with CAD. While the proportion of male patients receiving lipid-lowering medications appears appropriate, the proportion of women receiving such treatment remains undesirable.
BACKGROUND: While much of the gender difference in the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) results from the fact that the women being treated are older and have more comorbidities, it remains to be established whether a true gender bias exists. We compared physicians' attitudes and practice toward preventive therapy in men and women with CAD. HYPOTHESIS: Physicians perceive the prevention of CAD in men as more important than in women. METHODS: In the "attitude study," we obtained data on the attitudes of 172 physicians toward treatment, using hypothetical case histories of 58-year-old male and postmenopausal female patients with identical clinical and laboratory data and mild coronary atherosclerosis on angiography. In the "actual practice study," we evaluated the lipoprotein levels and prescription of lipid-lowering medications from medical records of 344 male and female patients with angiographic evidence of CAD. RESULTS: In the hypothetical case histories, physicians in general considered the male patient to be at higher risk and prescribed aspirin (91 vs. 77%, p < 0.01) and lipid-lowering medications (67 vs. 54%, p < 0.07) more often for the male patient. Evaluation of medical charts of patients with CAD revealed that in patients with baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol > 110 mg/dl, 77% of the males received a lipid-lowering medication, compared with only 47% of the female patients (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence for a gender bias in the attitude as well as in actual practice of secondary prevention toward patients with CAD. While the proportion of male patients receiving lipid-lowering medications appears appropriate, the proportion of women receiving such treatment remains undesirable.
Authors: J E Roeters van Lennep; A H Zwinderman; H W Roeters van Lennep; H E Westerveld; H W Plokker; A A Voors; A V Bruschke; E E van der Wall Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: S Gottlieb; D Harpaz; A Shotan; V Boyko; J Leor; M Cohen; L Mandelzweig; B Mazouz; S Stern; S Behar Journal: Circulation Date: 2000-11-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: William A Ghali; Peter D Faris; P Diane Galbraith; Colleen M Norris; Michael J Curtis; L Duncan Saunders; Vladimir Dzavik; L Brent Mitchell; Merril L Knudtson Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-05-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Karen M Goldstein; Karen M Stechuchak; Leah L Zullig; Eugene Z Oddone; Maren K Olsen; Felicia A McCant; Lori A Bastian; Bryan C Batch; Hayden B Bosworth Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Martin Thoenes; Ulrich Tebbe; Ludger Rosin; W Dieter Paar; Peter Bramlage; Wilhelm Kirch; Michael Böhm Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Jean C McSweeney; Anne G Rosenfeld; Willie M Abel; Lynne T Braun; Lora E Burke; Stacie L Daugherty; Gerald F Fletcher; Martha Gulati; Laxmi S Mehta; Christina Pettey; Jane F Reckelhoff Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Hava Tabenkin; Charles B Eaton; Mary B Roberts; Donna R Parker; Jerome H McMurray; Jeffrey Borkan Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2010 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166