Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jun 21;11(12):e024248.
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.121.024248. Epub 2022 Jun 14.

Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Attributable Cardiovascular Disease Risk Is Sex Specific

Affiliations

Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Attributable Cardiovascular Disease Risk Is Sex Specific

Arjen J Cupido et al. J Am Heart Assoc. .

Abstract

Background Epidemiological studies show that women are generally at lower risk for cardiovascular disease than men. Here, we investigated the sex-specific differential effect of genetically increased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and other lipid-associated diseases. Methods and Results This is a 2-sample Mendelian randomization study that uses individual participant data from 425 043 participants from the UK Biobank, including 229 279 female participants. An 80-variant LDL-C weighted genetic score was generated. Linear and logistic regression models with interactions were used to identify differences between sex-specific LDL-C effects on lipids, carotid-intima media thickness, and multiple cardiovascular outcomes such as CVD, ischemic heart disease, peripheral artery disease, heart failure, aortic valve disease, type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and aortic aneurysm and dissection. After correction for multiple testing, we observed that the genetically increased LDL-C effect on CVD events was sex specific: per SD genetically increased LDL-C, female participants had a higher LDL-C increase but an attenuated CVD risk increase compared with male participants (LDL-C: female participants 0.71 mmol/L, 95% CI, 0.70-0.72 and male participants 0.57 mmol/L, 95% CI, 0.56-0.59. P for interaction: 5.03×10-60; CVD: female participants: odds ratio [OR], 1.32; 95% CI 1.24-1.40 and male participants: OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.46-1.58. P for interaction: 9.88×10-5). We also observed attenuated risks for ischemic heart disease and (nominally for) heart failure in female participants, and genetically increased LDL-C results in higher risk for aortic valve disease in female participants compared with male participants. Genetically increased LDL-C was also associated with an attenuated carotid-intima media thickness increase in female participants. We did not observe other significant attenuations. Sensitivity analyses with an unweighted genetic score and sex-specific weighted genetic scores showed similar results. Conclusions We found that genetically increased LDL-C has a sex-specific differential effect on the risk for cardiovascular disease, ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and aortic valve stenosis. Our observations provide evidence that LDL-C might be a less important determinant of CVD in women compared with men, suggesting that male patients might benefit more from LDL-C targeted therapies for CVD management than female patients and warranting investigations into the sex-specific relative contribution of risk factors for CVD.

Keywords: cardiovascular disease; genetics; risk factor; sex‐differences.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Genetic instrument distribution and effect on lipids and CVD, stratified for sex.
A, difference in lipids due to 1 SD genetically increased LDL‐C in female participants and in male participants, with 95% CIs. Values on the top represent P value for interaction. B, Boxplot summarizing the distribution of the genetic instrument in the cohort (in median and interquartile range), stratified for female and male participants. ApoA indicates apolipoprotein A; ApoB, apolipoprotein B; CVD, cardiovascular disease; HDL‐C, high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL‐C, low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol; and Lp(a), lipoprotein(a).
Figure 2
Figure 2. The effects of an SD genetically increased LDL‐C on clinical outcome, stratified for sex.
Forest plot with odds ratios per 1 SD genetically increased LDL‐C for CVD, its subcomponents and other cardiovascular outcome, stratified for female participants and male participants. Values on the right side of the panel represent P values for interaction. LDL‐C indicates low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol; and OR, odds ratio.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effect of 1 SD genetically increased LDL‐C on mean IMT.
Bar plot comparing the difference in mean carotid intima media thickness (cIMT) between male and female participants per 1 SD genetically increased LDL‐C, Including 95% CI. Values on the top represent P‐value for interaction. LDL‐C indicates low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Visualization of directional concordance of genetic data with clinical trial data.
Forest plot illustrating the concordance of the genetic data and statin trial data on the significant difference between male and female participants on the risk ratio (genetic) and rate ratio (statin trials) for cardiovascular events, scaled to 1 mmol/L LDL‐C reduction, as defined by the CTT. The genetic data is based on dichotomization of the genetic risk instrument, effectively creating 2 groups within the separate male and female groups, similar to 2 groups in a clinical trial. CTT indicates Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration; LDL‐C, low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol; OR, odds ratio; and RR, rate ratio.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Virani SS, Alonso A, Benjamin EJ, Bittencourt MS, Callaway CW, Carson AP, Chamberlain AM, Chang AR, Cheng S, Delling FN, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics‐2020 update a report from the American Heart Association WRITING GROUP MEMBERS on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation. 2020;141:139–596. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000757 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Swiger KJ, Martin SS, Blaha MJ, Toth PP, Nasir K, Michos ED, Gerstenblith G, Blumenthal RS, Jones SR. Narrowing sex differences in lipoprotein cholesterol subclasses following mid‐life: the very large database of lipids (VLDL‐10B). J Am Heart Assoc. 2014;3. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.114.000851 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cangemi R, Romiti GF, Campolongo G, Ruscio E, Sciomer S, Gianfrilli D, Raparelli V. Gender related differences in treatment and response to statins in primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention: the never‐ending debate. Pharmacol Res. 2017;117:148–155. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2016.12.027 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schmidt AF, Groenwold RHH, van Delden JJM, van der Does Y, Klungel OH, Roes KCB, Hoes AW, van der Graaf R. Justification of exclusion criteria was underreported in a review of cardiovascular trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:635–644. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.005 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaboration .Efficacy and safety of LDL‐lowering therapy among men and women: meta‐analysis of individual data from 174 000 participants in 27 randomised trials. The Lancet. 2015;385:1397–1405. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(14)61368-4 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types