Jeanney Lew1, Monika Sanghavi1, Colby R Ayers1, Darren K McGuire1, Torbjørn Omland1, Dorothee Atzler1, Maria O Gore1, Ian Neeland1, Jarett D Berry1, Amit Khera1, Anand Rohatgi1, James A de Lemos2. 1. From Departments of Medicine (J.L., M.S., D.K.M., M.O.G., I.N., J.D.B., A.K., A.R., J.A.d.L.) and Clinical Sciences (C.R.A., D.K.M., J.D.B.), UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX; Division of Medicine, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, and University of Oslo, Norway (T.O.); Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany (D.A.); and Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Oxford, United Kingdom (D.A.). 2. From Departments of Medicine (J.L., M.S., D.K.M., M.O.G., I.N., J.D.B., A.K., A.R., J.A.d.L.) and Clinical Sciences (C.R.A., D.K.M., J.D.B.), UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX; Division of Medicine, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, and University of Oslo, Norway (T.O.); Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany (D.A.); and Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Oxford, United Kingdom (D.A.). james.delemos@utsouthwestern.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few data are available comparing cardiovascular disease (CVD) biomarker profiles between women and men in the general population. We analyzed sex-based differences in multiple biomarkers reflecting distinct pathophysiological pathways, accounting for differences between women and men in CVD risk factors, body composition, and cardiac morphology. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was performed using data from the Dallas Heart Study, a multiethnic population-based study. Associations between sex and 30 distinct biomarkers representative of 6 pathophysiological categories were evaluated using multivariable linear regression adjusting for age, race, traditional CVD risk factors, kidney function, insulin resistance, MRI and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry measures of body composition and fat distribution, and left ventricular mass. RESULTS: After excluding participants with CVD, the study population included 3439 individuals, mean age 43 years, 56% women, and 52% black. Significant sex-based differences were seen in multiple categories of biomarkers, including lipids, adipokines, and biomarkers of inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, myocyte injury and stress, and kidney function. In fully adjusted models, women had higher levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein particle concentration, leptin, d-dimer, homoarginine, and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide, and lower levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, adiponectin, lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 mass and activity, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, soluble endothelial cell adhesion molecule, symmetrical dimethylarginine, asymmetrical dimethylarginine, high-sensitivity troponin T, and cystatin C. CONCLUSIONS: Biomarker profiles differ significantly between women and men in the general population. Sex differences were most apparent for biomarkers of adiposity, endothelial dysfunction, inflammatory cell recruitment, and cardiac stress and injury. Future studies are needed to characterize whether pathophysiological processes delineated by these biomarkers contribute to sex-based differences in the development and complications of CVD.
BACKGROUND: Few data are available comparing cardiovascular disease (CVD) biomarker profiles between women and men in the general population. We analyzed sex-based differences in multiple biomarkers reflecting distinct pathophysiological pathways, accounting for differences between women and men in CVD risk factors, body composition, and cardiac morphology. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was performed using data from the Dallas Heart Study, a multiethnic population-based study. Associations between sex and 30 distinct biomarkers representative of 6 pathophysiological categories were evaluated using multivariable linear regression adjusting for age, race, traditional CVD risk factors, kidney function, insulin resistance, MRI and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry measures of body composition and fat distribution, and left ventricular mass. RESULTS: After excluding participants with CVD, the study population included 3439 individuals, mean age 43 years, 56% women, and 52% black. Significant sex-based differences were seen in multiple categories of biomarkers, including lipids, adipokines, and biomarkers of inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, myocyte injury and stress, and kidney function. In fully adjusted models, women had higher levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein particle concentration, leptin, d-dimer, homoarginine, and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide, and lower levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, adiponectin, lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 mass and activity, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, soluble endothelial cell adhesion molecule, symmetrical dimethylarginine, asymmetrical dimethylarginine, high-sensitivity troponin T, and cystatin C. CONCLUSIONS: Biomarker profiles differ significantly between women and men in the general population. Sex differences were most apparent for biomarkers of adiposity, endothelial dysfunction, inflammatory cell recruitment, and cardiac stress and injury. Future studies are needed to characterize whether pathophysiological processes delineated by these biomarkers contribute to sex-based differences in the development and complications of CVD.
Authors: Anand Rohatgi; Andrew W Owens; Amit Khera; Colby R Ayers; Kamakki Banks; Sandeep R Das; Jarett D Berry; Darren K McGuire; James A de Lemos Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Anand Rohatgi; Amit Khera; Jarett D Berry; Edward G Givens; Colby R Ayers; Kyle E Wedin; Ian J Neeland; Ivan S Yuhanna; Daniel R Rader; James A de Lemos; Philip W Shaul Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-11-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Shuaib M Abdullah; Amit Khera; David Leonard; Sandeep R Das; Russell M Canham; Sandeep A Kamath; Gloria L Vega; Scott M Grundy; Darren K McGuire; James A de Lemos Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2006-12-01 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Jeffrey S Berger; Laine Elliott; Dianne Gallup; Matthew Roe; Christopher B Granger; Paul W Armstrong; R John Simes; Harvey D White; Frans Van de Werf; Eric J Topol; Judith S Hochman; L Kristin Newby; Robert A Harrington; Robert M Califf; Richard C Becker; Pamela S Douglas Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-08-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Michel G Khouri; Ronald M Peshock; Colby R Ayers; James A de Lemos; Mark H Drazner Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-01-08 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Ian J Neeland; Colby R Ayers; Anand K Rohatgi; Aslan T Turer; Jarett D Berry; Sandeep R Das; Gloria L Vega; Amit Khera; Darren K McGuire; Scott M Grundy; James A de Lemos Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2013-05-19 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Anurag Mehta; Jaideep Patel; Mahmoud Al Rifai; Colby R Ayers; Ian J Neeland; Alka M Kanaya; Namratha Kandula; Michael J Blaha; Khurram Nasir; Roger S Blumenthal; Parag H Joshi Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Emily S Lau; Samantha M Paniagua; James Sawalla Guseh; Vijeta Bhambhani; Markella V Zanni; Paul Courchesne; Asya Lyass; Martin G Larson; Daniel Levy; Jennifer E Ho Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Wendy Ying; Di Zhao; Pamela Ouyang; Vinita Subramanya; Dhananjay Vaidya; Chiadi E Ndumele; Kavita Sharma; Sanjiv J Shah; Susan R Heckbert; Joao A Lima; Christopher R deFilippi; Matthew J Budoff; Wendy S Post; Erin D Michos Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Daniel E Forman; James A de Lemos; Leslee J Shaw; David B Reuben; Radmila Lyubarova; Eric D Peterson; John A Spertus; Susan Zieman; Marcel E Salive; Michael W Rich Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 24.094