Abstract
Background Recent studies show that the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) increases from a lower nadir of systolic blood pressure (SBP) in women than men, and increases thereafter at a greater rate. This has led to a suggestion that sex-based SBP thresholds are required. We aimed to investigate sex differences in the associations of SBP and incident atherosclerotic CVD in a large prospective cohort.
Methods 420,649 UK Biobank participants with no prior history of CVD were included. Age-adjusted sex-specific risks, relative risks (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) relating SBP to CVD were estimated using Poisson and Cox regression.
Results Over 13.2 years of follow-up there were 28,628 CVD events. CVD risks across BP levels showed a “J-shape”, and were higher in men than women at all BP levels. The lowest risks were at SBP 100-<105 mmHg (events per 10,000 person-years [95%CI]: 15.6 [11.8-23.1]) and 110-<115 (47.2 [41.8-53.0]) among women and men, respectively. Compared with SBP 100-<110, sex-specific RRs at above 120 were higher in women than men, but RDs were higher in men than women at all levels of SBP. Furthermore, compared to men at 100-<110 (i.e. the men with least risk), risks in women were lower at all levels of SBP below 170.
Conclusions CVD risk is lowest for women at a slightly lower SBP than men and RRs for CVD increase with SBP at a slightly steeper rate in women. However, both risks and RDs in women are never greater than in men. This evidence suggests that women should not have lower BP thresholds.
While risks are higher at lower BP levels in women than men when both sexes are considered independently, consideration of the risks and sex-combined analyses do not support treating women at lower BP levels than men.
In line with 2017 ACC/AHA guideline, antihypertensive treatment thresholds should be based on absolute risk calculated from sex-specific algorithms, rather than BP level in isolation.
Both risks and relative risks must be taken into account to understand sex-differences in the relationship of BP-CVD and whether these differences are clinically meaningful.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
N/A
Funding Statement
MW is supported by an Australian NHMRC Investigator Grant, Leadership 2 (APP1174120). CC is supported by an Australian NHMRC Investigator Grant, Emerging Leadership 1 (APP2009726).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
All individuals provided informed written consent 102 to participate and the study was approved by the National Information Governance 103 Board for Health and Social care and the National Health Service North West 104 Multicentre Research Ethics Committee (reference number 21/NW/0157).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Bona fide researchers can apply to use the UK Biobank dataset by registering and applying at http://ukbiobank.ac.uk/register-apply/.
Non-standard Abbreviations and Acronyms
- ACC
- American College of Cardiology
- AHA
- American Heart Association
- LRT
- likelihood ratio test
- NHANES
- National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
- OPCS
- Operating Procedure Codes Supplement
- RD
- risk difference
