16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Sex Differences in Cardiovascular Medication Prescription in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Sex differences in the management of cardiovascular disease have been reported in secondary care. We conducted a systematic review with meta‐analysis of systematically investigated sex differences in cardiovascular medication prescription among patients at high risk or with established cardiovascular disease in primary care.

          Methods and Results

          PubMed and Embase were searched between 2000 and 2019 for observational studies reporting on the sex‐specific prevalence of aspirin, statins, and antihypertensive medication prescription, including beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors, and diuretics, in primary care. Random effects meta‐analysis was used to obtain pooled women‐to‐men prevalence ratios for each cardiovascular medication prescription. Metaregression models assessed the impact of age and year on the findings. A total of 43 studies were included, involving 2 264 600 participants (28% women) worldwide. Participants’ mean age ranged from 51 to 76 years. The pooled prevalence of cardiovascular medication prescription for women was 41% for aspirin, 60% for statins, and 68% for any antihypertensive medications. Corresponding rates for men were 56%, 63%, and 69% respectively. The pooled women‐to‐men prevalence ratios were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.72–0.92) for aspirin, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85–0.95) for statins, and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.95–1.08) for any antihypertensive medications. Women were less likely to be prescribed angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors (0.85; 95% CI, 0.81–0.89) but more likely with diuretics (1.27; 95% CI, 1.17–1.37). Mean age, mean age difference between the sexes, and year of study had no significant impact on findings.

          Conclusions

          Sex differences in the prescription of cardiovascular medication exist among patients at high risk or with established cardiovascular disease in primary care, with a lower prevalence of aspirin, statins, and angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors prescription in women and a lower prevalence of diuretics prescription in men.

          Related collections

          Most cited references61

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Hypertension in adults across the age spectrum: current outcomes and control in the community.

          Data are sparse regarding current rates of hypertension treatment and control, and risks associated with hypertension, among persons older than 80 years. To determine the prevalence of blood pressure stages, hypertension treatment and control, and cardiovascular risk among older patients with hypertension. A community-based cohort study in which data were collected during all Framingham Heart Study examinations attended in the 1990s. Participants were pooled according to age: younger than 60 years, 60 to 79 years, or 80 years or older. There were 5296 participants who contributed 14 458 person-examinations of observation, including 7135 hypertensive person-examinations (4919 treated). Prevalence of hypertension, its treatment, and its control were compared across age groups. Risks for incident cardiovascular disease during follow-up of up to 6 years were estimated as multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Cox proportional hazards regression. Prevalence of hypertension and drug treatment increased with advancing age, whereas control rates were markedly lower in older women (systolic <140 and diastolic <90 mm Hg). For ages younger than 60 years, 60 to 79, and 80 years and older, respectively, control rates were 38%, 36%, and 38% in men (P = .30) and 38%, 28%, and 23% in women (P<.001). Relative risks for cardiovascular disease associated with increasing blood pressure stage did not decline with advancing age, and absolute risks increased markedly. Among participants 80 years of age or older, major cardiovascular events occurred in 9.5% of the normal blood pressure (referent) group, 19.8% of the prehypertension group (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 0.9-3.9), 20.3% of the stage 1 hypertension group (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.8-3.7), and 24.7% of the stage 2 or treated hypertension group (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.2-4.6). Relative to current national guidelines, rates of blood pressure control in the community are low, especially among older women with hypertension. Short-term risks for cardiovascular disease are substantial, indicating the need for greater efforts at safe, effective risk reduction among the oldest patients with hypertension.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Gender disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: large-scale observations from the CRUSADE (Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes With Early Implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines) National Quality Improvement Initiative.

            We hypothesized that significant disparities in gender exist in the management of patients with non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Gender-related differences in the diagnosis and treatment of ACS have important healthcare implications. No large-scale examination of these disparities has been completed since the publication of the revised American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for management of patients with NSTE ACS. Using data from the CRUSADE (Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes with Early Implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines) National Quality Improvement Initiative, we examined differences of gender in treatment and outcomes among patients with NSTE ACS. Women (41% of 35,875 patients) were older (median age 73 vs. 65 years) and more often had diabetes and hypertension. Women were less likely to receive acute heparin, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and less commonly received aspirin, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and statins at discharge. The use of cardiac catheterization and revascularization was higher in men, but among patients with significant coronary disease, percutaneous revascularization was performed in a similar proportion of women and men. Women were at higher risk for unadjusted in-hospital death (5.6% vs. 4.3%), reinfarction (4.0% vs. 3.5%), heart failure (12.1% vs. 8.8%), stroke (1.1% vs. 0.8%), and red blood cell transfusion (17.2% vs. 13.2%), but after adjustment, only transfusion was higher in women. Despite presenting with higher risk characteristics and having higher in-hospital risk, women with NSTE ACS are treated less aggressively than men.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Gender differences in hypertension treatment, drug utilization patterns, and blood pressure control among US adults with hypertension: data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2004.

              National guidelines recommend the same approach for treating hypertensive men and women. It is not known, however, whether current US antihypertensive medication utilization patterns and the resulting degrees of blood pressure (BP) control are similar or different among hypertensive women and men. The study was a cross-sectional, nationally representative survey of the noninstitutionalized civilian US population. Persons aged > or =18 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2004 were classified as hypertensive based on a BP > or =140/90 mm Hg, currently taking antihypertensive medication, or having been diagnosed by a physician. Among hypertensives, the prevalence of antihypertensive medication use was significantly higher among women than men (61.4% vs. 56.8%), especially among middle-aged persons (40-49 years, 53.1% vs. 42.7%) and among non-Hispanic blacks (65.5% vs. 54.6%). Also, treated women were more likely than men to use diuretics (31.6% vs. 22.3%) and angiotensin receptor blockers (11.3% vs. 8.7%). Among treated hypertensives, the proportion taking three or more antihypertensive drugs was lower among women than men, especially among older persons (60-69 years: 12.3% vs. 19.8%, 70-79 years: 18.6% vs. 21.2%, and > or =80 years: 18.8% vs. 22.8%). Only 44.8% of treated women achieved BP control vs. 51.1% of treated men. Hypertensive women are significantly more likely to be treated than men, but less likely to have achieved BP control. Additional efforts may be needed to achieve therapeutic goals for the US hypertensive population, especially for hypertensive women.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                sanne.peters@georgeinstitute.ox.ac.uk
                Journal
                J Am Heart Assoc
                J Am Heart Assoc
                10.1002/(ISSN)2047-9980
                JAH3
                ahaoa
                Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2047-9980
                20 June 2020
                02 June 2020
                : 9
                : 11 ( doiID: 10.1002/jah3.v9.11 )
                : e014742
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Julius Global Health Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care Utrecht Medical Centre Utrecht University Utrecht Netherlands
                [ 2 ] The George Institute for Global Health University of Oxford United Kingdom
                [ 3 ] The George Institute for Global Health University of New South Wales Sydney Australia
                [ 4 ] Department of Epidemiology John Hopkins University Baltimore MD
                [ 5 ] Global Geo and Health Data center Utrecht University Utrecht The Netherlands
                [ 6 ] Division of Epidemiology & Biostatistics School of Public Health Faculty of Health Sciences University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
                [ 7 ] Faculty of Medicine and Health Westmead Applied Research Centre University of Sydney Australia
                [ 8 ] Sydney School of Public Health Sydney Medical School University of Sydney New South Wales Australia
                Author notes
                [*] [* ]Correspondence to: Sanne A. E. Peters, PhD, The George Institute for Global Health, University of Oxford, Hayes House, 1st Floor, 75 George Street, Oxford OX1 2BQ, United Kingdom. E‐mail: sanne.peters@ 123456georgeinstitute.ox.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0346-5412
                Article
                JAH35070
                10.1161/JAHA.119.014742
                7429003
                32431190
                f880e02c-bafa-4886-9cf2-382b81cd08d9
                © 2020 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 07 December 2019
                : 27 February 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 1, Pages: 10, Words: 7636
                Funding
                Funded by: Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research
                Award ID: 0.22.005.021
                Funded by: National Health and Medical Research Council , open-funder-registry 10.13039/501100000925;
                Award ID: 632507
                Award ID: APP1080206
                Funded by: Dutch Heart Foundation , open-funder-registry 10.13039/501100002996;
                Funded by: National Heart Foundation Australia Postdoctoral Fellowship
                Award ID: 102138
                Funded by: UK Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship
                Award ID: MR/P014550/1
                Categories
                Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
                Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                02 June 2020
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.8.5 mode:remove_FC converted:19.07.2020

                Cardiovascular Medicine
                cardiovascular medication,meta‐analysis,primary care,sex differences,systematic review,epidemiology,cardiovascular disease

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content97

                Cited by79

                Most referenced authors3,217