Objective To compare coronary risk factors and disease prevalence among Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis, and in all South Asians (these three groups together) with Europeans. Results There were differences in social and economic circumstances, lifestyles, anthropometric measures and disease both between Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis and between all South Asians and Europeans. Bangladeshis and Pakistanis were the poorest groups. For most risk factors, the Bangladeshis (particularly men) fared the worst: smoking was most common (57%) in that group, and Bangladeshis had the highest concentrations of triglycerides (2.04 mmol/l) and fasting blood glucose (6.6 mmol/l) and the lowest concentration of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (0.97 mmol/l). Blood pressure, however, was lowest in Bangladeshis. Bangladeshis were the shortest (men 164 cm tall v 170 cm for Indians and 174 cm for Europeans). A higher proportion of Pakistani and Bangladeshi men had diabetes (22.4% and 26.6% respectively) than Indians (15.2%). Comparisons of all South Asians with Europeans hid some important differences, but South Asians were still disadvantaged in a wide range of risk factors. Findings in women were similar. Conclusion Risk of coronary heart disease is not uniform among South Asians, and there are important differences between Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis for many coronary risk factors. The belief that, except for insulin resistance, South Asians have lower levels of coronary risk factors than Europeans is incorrect, and may have arisen from combining ethnic subgroups and examining a narrow range of factors.
Objective: To compare the implications of four widely used cholesterol screening and treatment guidelines by applying them to a population in the United Kingdom. Design: Guidelines were applied to population based data from a cross sectional study of cardiovascular disease and risk factors. Setting: Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom. Subjects: General population sample (predominantly of European origin) of 322 men and 319 women aged 25-64 years. Main outcome measures: Proportions recommended for screening and treatment. Methods: Criteria from the British Hyperlipidaemia Association, the British Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin (which used the Sheffield table), the European Atherosclerosis Society, and the American national cholesterol education programme were applied to the population. Results: Proportions recommended for treatment varied appreciably. Based on the British Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin guidelines, treatment was recommended for 5.3% (95% confidence interval 2.9% to 7.7%) of men and 3.3% (1.5% to 5.3%) of women, while equivalent respective values were 4.6 (2.3 to 6.9) and 2.8 (1.0 to 4.6) for the British Hyperlipidaemia Association, 23% (18.4% to 27.6%) and 10.6% (7.3% to 14.0%) for the European Atherosclerosis Society, and 37.2% (31.9% to 42.5%) and 22.2% (17.6% to 26.8%) for the national cholesterol education programme. Only the British Hyperlipidaemia Association and Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin guidelines recommend selective screening. Applying British Hyperlipidaemia Association guidelines, from 7.1% (4.3% to 9.9%) of men in level one to 56.7% (51.3% to 62.1%) of men in level three, and from 4.4% (2.1% to 6.7%) of women in level one to 54.4% (48.9% to 59.9%) of women in level three would have been recommended for cholesterol screening. Had the Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin guidelines been applied, 22.2% (16.5% to 27.9%) of men and 12.2% (8.6% to 15.8%) of women would have been screened. Conclusions: Without evidence based guidelines, there are problems of variation. A consistent approach needs to be developed and agreed across the United Kingdom.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.