Dietary Modifications and Lipid Accumulation Product Are Associated with Systolic and Diastolic Blood Pressures in the Women’s Health Trial: Feasibility Study in Minority Populations

Unique Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors in Hispanic Individuals

Purpose of Review

This review summarizes contemporary data on unique cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in Hispanic individuals in the USA, and how addressing these factors is important in addressing health equity.

Recent Findings

Recent studies have shown high rates of traditional CVD risk factors in Hispanic individuals such as obesity, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and emerging CVD risk factors like hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, psychological stress, and occupational exposures. However, most studies fail to consider the significant heterogeneity in risk factor burden and outcomes in atherosclerotic CVD by Hispanic subgroup. Heart failure and rhythm disorders are less well studied in Hispanic adults, making risk assessment for these conditions difficult. High levels of CVD risk factors in Hispanic youth given an aging Hispanic population overall highlight the importance of risk mitigation among these individuals.

Summary

In brief, these data highlight the significant, unique burden of CVD risk among Hispanic individuals in the USA and predict a rising burden of disease among this growing and aging population. Future CVD research should focus on including robust, diverse Hispanic cohorts as well as specifically delineating results for disaggregated Hispanic groups across CVDs. This will allow for better risk assessment, prevention, and treatment decisions to promote health equity for Hispanic patients.

Disparities in Cardiovascular Care and Outcomes for Women From Racial/Ethnic Minority Backgrounds

Purpose of review

Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in cardiovascular care are well-documented. This review aims to highlight the disparities and impact on a group particularly vulnerable to disparities, women from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds.

Recent findings

Women from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds remain underrepresented in major cardiovascular trials, limiting the generalizability of cardiovascular research to this population. Certain cardiovascular risk factors are more prevalent in women from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds, including traditional risk factors such as hypertension, obesity, and diabetes. Female-specific risk factors including gestational diabetes and preeclampsia as well as non-traditional psychosocial risk factors like depressive and anxiety disorders, increased child care, and familial and home care responsibility have been shown to increase risk for cardiovascular disease events in women more so than in men, and disproportionately affect women from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds. Despite this, minimal interventions to address differential risk have been proposed. Furthermore, disparities in treatment and outcomes that disadvantage minority women persist. The limited improvement in outcomes over time, especially among non-Hispanic Black women, is an area that requires further research and active interventions.

Summary

Understanding the lack of representation in cardiovascular trials, differential cardiovascular risk, and disparities in treatment and outcomes among women from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds highlights opportunities for improving cardiovascular care among this particularly vulnerable population.

Effects of total fat intake on body fatness in adults

BACKGROUND

The ideal proportion of energy from fat in our food and its relation to body weight is not clear. In order to prevent overweight and obesity in the general population, we need to understand the relationship between the proportion of energy from fat and resulting weight and body fatness in the general population.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of proportion of energy intake from fat on measures of body fatness (including body weight, waist circumference, percentage body fat and body mass index) in people not aiming to lose weight, using all appropriate randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least six months duration.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to October 2019. We did not limit the search by language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials fulfilled the following criteria: 1) randomised intervention trial, 2) included adults aged at least 18 years, 3) randomised to a lower fat versus higher fat diet, without the intention to reduce weight in any participants, 4) not multifactorial and 5) assessed a measure of weight or body fatness after at least six months. We duplicated inclusion decisions and resolved disagreement by discussion or referral to a third party.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on the population, intervention, control and outcome measures in duplicate. We extracted measures of body fatness (body weight, BMI, percentage body fat and waist circumference) independently in duplicate at all available time points. We performed random-effects meta-analyses, meta-regression, subgrouping, sensitivity, funnel plot analyses and GRADE assessment.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 37 RCTs (57,079 participants). There is consistent high-quality evidence from RCTs that reducing total fat intake results in small reductions in body fatness; this was seen in almost all included studies and was highly resistant to sensitivity analyses (GRADE high-consistency evidence, not downgraded). The effect of eating less fat (compared with higher fat intake) is a mean body weight reduction of 1.4 kg (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.7 to -1.1 kg, in 53,875 participants from 26 RCTs, I² = 75%). The heterogeneity was explained in subgrouping and meta-regression. These suggested that greater weight loss results from greater fat reductions in people with lower fat intake at baseline, and people with higher body mass index (BMI) at baseline. The size of the effect on weight does not alter over time and is mirrored by reductions in BMI (MD -0.5 kg/m², 95% CI -0.6 to -0.3, 46,539 participants in 14 trials, I² = 21%), waist circumference (MD -0.5 cm, 95% CI -0.7 to -0.2, 16,620 participants in 3 trials; I² = 21%), and percentage body fat (MD -0.3% body fat, 95% CI -0.6 to 0.00, P = 0.05, in 2350 participants in 2 trials; I² = 0%). There was no suggestion of harms associated with low fat diets that might mitigate any benefits on body fatness. The reduction in body weight was reflected in small reductions in LDL (-0.13 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.05), and total cholesterol (-0.23 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.14), with little or no effect on HDL cholesterol (-0.02 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.00), triglycerides (0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.07), systolic (-0.75 mmHg, 95% CI -1.42 to -0.07) or diastolic blood pressure(-0.52 mmHg, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.09), all GRADE high-consistency evidence or quality of life (0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.07, on a scale of 0 to 10, GRADE low-consistency evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Trials where participants were randomised to a lower fat intake versus a higher fat intake, but with no intention to reduce weight, showed a consistent, stable but small effect of low fat intake on body fatness: slightly lower weight, BMI, waist circumference and percentage body fat compared with higher fat arms. Greater fat reduction, lower baseline fat intake and higher baseline BMI were all associated with greater reductions in weight. There was no evidence of harm to serum lipids, blood pressure or quality of life, but rather of small benefits or no effect.