Key result
Low socioeconomic position is linked to ~180% greater CV risk, partially driven by established factors.
Why the study?
The importance of established risk factors versus low-grade inflammation in explaining socioeconomic differences in CVD varies depending on whether relative or absolute measures of social inequalities are used.
How do established risk factors and CRP explain socioeconomic differences in CVD incidence when measured on relative versus absolute scales?
Cohort (n=4,268)
No
How do established risk factors and CRP explain socioeconomic differences in CVD incidence when measured on relative versus absolute scales?
Hazard Ratio: 2.8 (95% CI 1.6–4.7)
Absolute Event Rate: 683% vs 250%
The importance of novel risk factors like CRP versus established risk factors in explaining socioeconomic inequalities in CVD depends heavily on whether relative or absolute scales are used.
Established risk factors explain more of absolute than relative socioeconomic CVD gradients; leaves open CRP contributions on either scale.
BACKGROUND: The widespread use of relative scales in socioepidemiological studies has recently been criticized. The criticism is based mainly on the fact that the importance of different risk factors in explaining social inequalities in cardiovascular disease (CVD) varies, depending on which scale is used to measure social inequalities. The present study examines the importance of established risk factors, as opposed to low-grade inflammation, in explaining socioeconomic differences in the incidence of CVD, using both relative and absolute scales. METHODS: We obtained information on socioeconomic position (SEP), established risk factors (smoking, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia), and low-grade inflammation as measured by high-sensitive (hs) C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, in 4,268 Swedish men and women who participated in the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study (MDCS). Data on first cardiovascular events, i.e., stroke or coronary event (CE), was collected from regional and national registers. Social inequalities were measured in relative terms, i.e., as ratios between incidence rates in groups with lower and higher SEP, and also in absolute terms, i.e., as the absolute difference in incidence rates in groups with lower and higher SEP. RESULTS: Those with low SEP had a higher risk of future CVD. Adjustment for risk factors resulted in a rather small reduction in the relative socioeconomic gradient, namely 8% for CRP (>/= 3 mg/L) and 21% for established risk factors taken together. However, there was a reduction of 18% in the absolute socioeconomic gradient when looking at subjects with CRP-levels < 3 mg/L, and of 69% when looking at a low-risk population with no smoking, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia. CONCLUSION: C-reactive protein and established risk factors all contribute to socioeconomic differences in CVD. However, conclusions on the importance of "modern" risk factors (here, CRP), as opposed to established risk factors, in the association between SEP and CVD depend on the scale on which social inequalities are measured. The one-sided use of the relative scale, without including a background of absolute levels of disease, and of what causes disease, can consequently prevent efforts to reduce established risk factors by giving priority to research and preventive programs looking in new directions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rosvall et al. (2008) conducted a cohort in Cardiovascular disease (n=4,268). Low socioeconomic position (≤8 years of education) vs. High socioeconomic position (>12 years of education) was evaluated on First cardiovascular event (stroke or coronary event) (HR 2.8, 95% CI 1.6-4.7). Low socioeconomic position was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, and established risk factors explained 69% of the absolute socioeconomic gradient but only 21% of the relative gradient.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: