Randi E Foraker1, Mahmoud Abdel-Rasoul2, Lewis H Kuller3, Rebecca D Jackson4, Linda Van Horn5, Rebecca A Seguin6, Monika M Safford7, Robert B Wallace8, Anna M Kucharska-Newton9, Jennifer G Robinson8, Lisa W Martin10, Golareh Agha11, Lifang Hou5, Norrina B Allen5, Hilary A Tindle12. 1. Division of Epidemiology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Electronic address: rforaker@cph.osu.edu. 2. Center for Biostatistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 3. Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 5. Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 6. Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 7. Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 8. Department of Epidemiology, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 9. Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 10. Department of Medicine, The George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia. 11. Department of Environmental Health, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts; 12. Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The American Heart Association's "Simple 7" offers a practical public health conceptualization of cardiovascular health (CVH). CVH predicts incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) in younger populations, but has not been studied in a large, diverse population of aging postmenopausal women. The extent to which CVH predicts cancer in postmenopausal women is unknown. METHODS: Multivariable Cox regression estimated hazard ratios and 95% CIs for the association between CVH and incident CVD, any cancer, and cancer subtypes (lung, colorectal, and breast) among 161,809 Women's Health Initiative observational study and clinical trial participants followed from 1993 through 2010. Data were analyzed in 2013. CVH score was characterized as the number (0 [worst] to 7 [best]) of the American Heart Association's ideal CVH behaviors and factors at baseline: smoking, BMI, physical activity, diet, total cholesterol, blood pressure, and fasting glucose. RESULTS: Median follow-up was approximately 13 years. Fewer minorities and less educated women achieved ideal CVH, a common benchmark. In adjusted models, compared with women with the highest (best) CVH scores, those with the lowest (worst) CVH scores had nearly seven times the hazard of incident CVD (6.83, 95% CI=5.83, 8.00) and 52% greater risk of incident cancer (1.52, 95% CI=1.35, 1.72). Ideal CVH was most strongly inversely associated with lung cancer, then colorectal cancer, and then breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Lower ideal CVH is more common among minority and less educated postmenopausal women and predicts increased risk of CVD and cancer in this population, emphasizing the importance of prevention efforts among vulnerable older adults.
INTRODUCTION: The American Heart Association's "Simple 7" offers a practical public health conceptualization of cardiovascular health (CVH). CVH predicts incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) in younger populations, but has not been studied in a large, diverse population of aging postmenopausal women. The extent to which CVH predicts cancer in postmenopausal women is unknown. METHODS: Multivariable Cox regression estimated hazard ratios and 95% CIs for the association between CVH and incident CVD, any cancer, and cancer subtypes (lung, colorectal, and breast) among 161,809 Women's Health Initiative observational study and clinical trial participants followed from 1993 through 2010. Data were analyzed in 2013. CVH score was characterized as the number (0 [worst] to 7 [best]) of the American Heart Association's ideal CVH behaviors and factors at baseline: smoking, BMI, physical activity, diet, total cholesterol, blood pressure, and fasting glucose. RESULTS: Median follow-up was approximately 13 years. Fewer minorities and less educated women achieved ideal CVH, a common benchmark. In adjusted models, compared with women with the highest (best) CVH scores, those with the lowest (worst) CVH scores had nearly seven times the hazard of incident CVD (6.83, 95% CI=5.83, 8.00) and 52% greater risk of incident cancer (1.52, 95% CI=1.35, 1.72). Ideal CVH was most strongly inversely associated with lung cancer, then colorectal cancer, and then breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Lower ideal CVH is more common among minority and less educated postmenopausal women and predicts increased risk of CVD and cancer in this population, emphasizing the importance of prevention efforts among vulnerable older adults.
Authors: J David Curb; Anne McTiernan; Susan R Heckbert; Charles Kooperberg; Janet Stanford; Michael Nevitt; Karen C Johnson; Lori Proulx-Burns; Lisa Pastore; Michael Criqui; Sandra Daugherty Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Aaron R Folsom; Hiroshi Yatsuya; Jennifer A Nettleton; Pamela L Lutsey; Mary Cushman; Wayne D Rosamond Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-04-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Vanessa Xanthakis; Danielle M Enserro; Joanne M Murabito; Joseph F Polak; Kai C Wollert; James L Januzzi; Thomas J Wang; Geoffrey Tofler; Ramachandran S Vasan Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ambar Kulshreshtha; Viola Vaccarino; Suzanne E Judd; Virginia J Howard; William M McClellan; Paul Muntner; Yuling Hong; Monika M Safford; Abhinav Goyal; Mary Cushman Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Christina M Shay; Hongyan Ning; Norrina B Allen; Mercedes R Carnethon; Stephanie E Chiuve; Kurt J Greenlund; Martha L Daviglus; Donald M Lloyd-Jones Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-11-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Enrique G Artero; Vanesa España-Romero; Duck-chul Lee; Xuemei Sui; Timothy S Church; Carl J Lavie; Steven N Blair Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Laura J Rasmussen-Torvik; Christina M Shay; Judith G Abramson; Christopher A Friedrich; Jennifer A Nettleton; Anna E Prizment; Aaron R Folsom Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-03-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Quanhe Yang; Mary E Cogswell; W Dana Flanders; Yuling Hong; Zefeng Zhang; Fleetwood Loustalot; Cathleen Gillespie; Robert Merritt; Frank B Hu Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-03-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rebecca A Seguin-Fowler; David Strogatz; Meredith L Graham; Galen D Eldridge; Grace A Marshall; Sara C Folta; Kristin Pullyblank; Miriam E Nelson; Lynn Paul Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Elizabeth M Cespedes Feliciano; Marilyn L Kwan; Lawrence H Kushi; Erin K Weltzien; Adrienne L Castillo; Bette J Caan Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Abbi D Lane-Cordova; Kiarri Kershaw; Kiang Liu; David Herrington; Donald M Lloyd-Jones Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Randi E Foraker; Abigail B Shoben; Marjorie M Kelley; Albert M Lai; Marcelo A Lopetegui; Rebecca D Jackson; Michael A Langan; Philip R O Payne Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2016-07-13
Authors: Itai M Magodoro; Maggie Feng; Crystal M North; Dagmar Vořechovská; John D Kraemer; Bernard Kakuhikire; David Bangsberg; Alexander C Tsai; Mark J Siedner Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2019-04-25 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Samuel S Gidding; Donald Lloyd-Jones; Joao Lima; Bharat Ambale-Venkatesh; Sanjiv J Shah; Ravi Shah; Cora E Lewis; David R Jacobs; Norrina B Allen Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2019-09-11 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Rebecca E Cash; Sarah E Anderson; Kathryn E Lancaster; Bo Lu; Madison K Rivard; Carlos A Camargo; Ashish R Panchal Journal: J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open Date: 2021-07-21