
==== Front
Int J Cardiol Cardiovasc Risk Prev
Int J Cardiol Cardiovasc Risk Prev
International Journal of Cardiology. Cardiovascular Risk and Prevention
2772-4875
Elsevier

S2772-4875(24)00087-4
10.1016/j.ijcrp.2024.200322
200322
Research Paper
Higher neighborhood disadvantage is associated with weaker interactions among cardiometabolic drivers☆
Hernandez Sevillano Joel jose.hernandezsevillano@mountsinai.org
@Joel27016550
ab⁎
Babagoli Masih A. c
Chen Yitong d
Liu Shelley H. d
Mellacheruvu Pranav e
Johnson Janet a
Ibanez Borja bfg
Lorenzo Oscar hi
Mechanick Jeffrey I. a
a Kravis Center for Clinical Cardiovascular Health at the Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
b Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares (CNIC), Madrid, Spain
c Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
d Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
e Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
f Cardiology Department, IIS-Fundación Jiménez Díaz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain
g CIBER de Enfermedades Cardiovasculares (CIBERCV), Madrid, Spain
h IIS-Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Autónoma University, Madrid, Spain
i Biomedical Research Network on Diabetes and Associated Metabolic Disorders (CIBERDEM), Carlos III National Health Institute, Madrid, Spain
⁎ Corresponding author. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Clinical Trials Unit, Freedom Trial. 1 Gustave L. Levy Pl, New York, NY, 10029, USA./ jose.hernandezsevillano@mountsinai.org@Joel27016550
19 8 2024
12 2024
19 8 2024
23 20032219 6 2024
23 7 2024
15 8 2024
© 2024 The Authors
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Background

Adiposity, dysglycemia, and hypertension are metabolic drivers that have causal interactions with each other. However, the effect of neighborhood-level disadvantage on the intensity of interactions among these metabolic drivers has not been studied. The objective of this study is to determine whether the strength of the interplay between these drivers is affected by neighborhood-level disadvantage.

Methods

This cross-sectional study analyzed patients presenting to a multidisciplinary preventive cardiology center in New York City, from March 2017 to February 2021. Patients’ home addresses were mapped to the Area Deprivation Index to determine neighborhood disadvantage. The outcomes of interest were correlation coefficients (range from −1 to +1) among the various stages (0 - normal, 1 - risk, 2 - predisease, 3 - disease, and 4 - complications) of abnormal adiposity, dysglycemia, and hypertension at presentation, stratified by neighborhood disadvantage.

Results

The cohort consisted of 963 patients (age, median [IQR] 63.8 [49.7–72.5] years; 624 [65.1 %] female). The correlation among the various stages of adiposity, dysglycemia, and hypertension was weaker with increasing neighborhood disadvantage (P for trend <0.001). Specifically, the correlation describing adiposity, dysglycemia, and hypertension interaction was weaker in the high neighborhood disadvantage group compared to the intermediate neighborhood disadvantage group (median [IQR]: 0.34 [0.27, 0.44] vs. median [IQR]: 0.39 [0.34, 0.45]; P < 0.001) and compared to the low neighborhood disadvantage group (median [IQR]: 0.34 [0.27, 0.44] vs. median [IQR]: 0.54 [0.52, 0.57]; P < 0.001), as well as weaker in the intermediate neighborhood disadvantage group compared to the low neighborhood disadvantage group (median [IQR]: 0.39 [0.34, 0.45] vs. 0.54 median [IQR]: 0.54 [0.52, 0.57]; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Interactions among the various stages of abnormal adiposity, dysglycemia, and hypertension with each other are weaker with increasing neighborhood disadvantage. Factors related to neighborhood-level disadvantage, other than abnormal adiposity, might play a crucial role in the development of dysglycemia and hypertension.

Condensed Abstract.

Individual- and neighborhood-level disadvantage are associated with higher prevalence rates of certain interacting cardiometabolic drivers such as adiposity, dysglycemia, and hypertension. However, the effect of this disadvantage on the intensity of cardiometabolic driver interactions has not been studied. In this cross-sectional investigation of >900 patients from a preventive cardiology center, the interactions among these drivers with each other, classified according to stage at presentation, were more intense among the least disadvantaged compared with most disadvantaged patients. This suggests the influence of hidden variables on interactions among cardiometabolic drivers and underscores the need to assess individual- and neighborhood-level social/structural determinants of health.

Keywords

Adiposity
Dysglycemia
Hypertension
Social determinants of health
Abbreviations

ABCD adiposity-based chronic disease

ADI area deprivation index

CMBCD cardiometabolic-based chronic disease

CVD cardiovascular disease

DBCD dysglycemia-based chronic disease

FIPS Federal Information Processing Standard

HBCD hypertension-based chronic disease

LBCD lipid-based chronic disease

SDOH social determinants of health

T2D type 2 diabetes

Handling editor: D Levy
==== Body
pmc1 Introduction

Disparities in cardiometabolic healthcare are significantly affected by socioeconomic factors and pose great challenges in the U.S [1]. Indeed, socioeconomic disadvantage has emerged as a unique risk factor, associated with worse outcomes and reduced life expectancy well beyond that predicted for conventional risk factors [2]. Comprehending and lessening these major disparities through health equity is a growing focus of interest, as stated in the American Heart Association's 2030 Impact Goals [3].

Considerable epidemiological and mechanistic data support non-causal and causal relationships, respectively, among cardiometabolic drivers. The main causal drivers are “adiposity” (a term that refers to abnormal adipose tissue amount, distribution, or function) and “dysglycemia” (a term describing a continuum that progressively ranges from risk for altered glucose metabolism, to insulin resistance, to prediabetes, to type 2 diabetes (T2D), to cardiovascular complications) [4]. Following this system, adiposity impels dysglycemia [5], hypertension [6], and dyslipidemia [7]; dysglycemia impels hypertension [8] and dyslipidemia [9]; and all four impel cardiovascular disease (CVD) [4]. Notwithstanding the well-established correlation of socioeconomic disadvantage with severity of individual cardiometabolic risk factors considered in isolation, inter-relationships among cardiometabolic driver stages considered in aggregate and how they are impacted by social determinants of health (SDOH) remain unclear.

Cardiometabolic driver inter-relationships are well represented by the cardiometabolic-based chronic disease (CMBCD) model [4]. This model exposes opportunities for early prevention and personalized management of cardiometabolic risks and resulting CVD [10]. The three dimensions of this model are: 1) drivers - primary (genetic, environmental, and behavioral) and secondary/metabolic (adiposity, dysglycemia, hypertension, and dyslipidemia); 2) stages - progression of secondary metabolic drivers over time (risk, predisease, disease, and complications); and 3) personalization - applying SDOH [11].

While many previous studies have analyzed the role of individual-level SDOH on CVD, recent studies have shown that neighborhood-level SDOH factors are associated with CVD independent of individual levels of socioeconomic disadvantage and CVD risk factors [12]. From a practical standpoint, neighborhood-level socioeconomic disadvantage can be detected using data from the American Community Survey [13], which is a robust repository that incorporates income, employment, housing conditions, and educational data [14]. Previous research using data from this repository has linked socioeconomic disadvantage to negative health outcomes, such as long-term mortality after myocardial infarction [15], development of atherosclerotic CVD [16], and hospital readmission rates [1]. However, the way in which neighborhood-level disadvantage modifies the inter-correlations among abnormal adiposity, dysglycemia and hypertension has not been adequately studied. Thus, in this cross-sectional study of patients presenting to a preventive cardiology center, we explore the association between neighborhood disadvantage and cardiometabolic driver inter-correlations to gain insights about preventing CMBCD development and progression.

2 Methods

2.1 Study setting

This study was conducted in the Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis Center for Clinical Cardiovascular Health at the Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York City (the “Center”), a multidisciplinary preventive cardiology program integrating lifestyle medicine (healthy nutrition, physical activity, and healthy behaviors) with guideline-directed medical therapy, all in one physical structure. This work was approved by the Mount Sinai Institutional Review Board (STUDY 22–01267).

2.2 Data sources and study population

The Mount Sinai Data Warehouse created a customized data mart cohort of all patient encounters in the Center through the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model. Supporting queries that allowed advanced data searches with Microsoft SQL were used to develop the final database. This allowed detection of patients meeting inclusion criteria: patients with a first Center visit from March 1st, 2017 (Center inception) until February 28, 2021. This cross-sectional information was curated according to variables that corresponded, reflected, or otherwise indicated specific stages for each cardiometabolic driver at first Center visit.

2.3 Cardiometabolic-based chronic disease model classification

In the CMBCD model, adiposity, dysglycemia, hypertension, and dyslipidemia are each considered not only as secondary/metabolic drivers for CVD but also as individual driver-based chronic diseases (i.e., adiposity-, dysglycemia-, hypertension-, and lipid-based chronic disease [ABCD, DBCD, HBCD, and LBCD, respectively]). These chronic diseases are classified as stages 0–4. Stage 0 (“normal”) is defined by the absence of any cardiometabolic phenotypic feature or risk factor (i.e., primary drivers [genetic, environmental, or behavioral], or impelling secondary/metabolic drivers [adiposity and/or dysglycemia]). Stage 1 (“risk”) refers to the presence of risk factors but absence of any cardiometabolic phenotypic features. Stage 2 (“predisease”) refers to the presence of abnormal cardiometabolic phenotypic features that do not satisfy diagnostic criteria for a disease state. Stage 3 (“disease”) refers to the presence of abnormal cardiometabolic phenotypic features that satisfy diagnostic criteria for a disease state. Stage 4 (“complications”) refers to the presence of additional downstream cardiometabolic driver or organ dysfunction arising from predisease or disease states. Further descriptor details for ABCD, DBCD, HBCD, and LBCD stage classifications may be found in the Supplementary Material.

Clinical presentations to the Center may be classified as CMBCD-related or non-CMBCD-related. CMBCD-related diagnoses pertain to ABCD, DBCD, HBCD, LBCD, CVD (atherosclerosis, heart failure, or atrial fibrillation), metabolic syndrome, certain symptoms (e.g., chest pain, dyspnea, or palpitations), or abnormal cardiac tests. Non-CMBCD-related diagnoses pertain to the remaining patients.

3 Neighborhood disadvantage using the area deprivation index based on residential address

A home address and 12-digit Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) code was used to link each patient to their corresponding census block group. A census block group is the smallest geographical unit, roughly containing 600 to 3000 people, for which the U.S. Census Bureau publishes sample data and approximates a typical neighborhood. Every census block group has a unique 12-digit FIPS code. Patients without a FIPS code (international or with an address that could not be accurately geocoded) were excluded from study. The FIPS code was obtained in 963 (92.2 %) out of the 1045 patients in the cohort.

Neighborhood-level socioeconomic disadvantage was categorized using the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), which is a systematized score based on census variables [17]. The ADI combines measures of employment, income, education, and housing quality obtained from the American Community Survey for each census block group in the United States [14]. The ADI is publicly available and allows for rankings of neighborhoods (census blocks) by socioeconomic disadvantage relative to the state (scale from 1 to 10). An ADI rank of 1 represents the lowest level of neighborhood disadvantage, whereas a rank of 10 indicates the highest level of neighborhood disadvantage. ADI ranks 1 through 3 were categorized into the low ADI group – low neighborhood disadvantage, middle ADI – intermediate neighborhood disadvantage, and high ADI – high neighborhood disadvantage [15].

4 Outcomes of interest

The objective of this study was to determine if inter-correlations among cardiometabolic drivers are affected by neighborhood-level disadvantage (SDOH). This objective was fulfilled by obtaining the following outcomes: the composite classification of patients by specific CMBCD drivers and their respective stages, cross-correlations among drivers/stages to represent inter-relationships (using polychoric correlations), and the calculated average correlation stratified by ADI group.

4.1 Statistical analysis

Analyses were performed with R (version 4.3.1; R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Vienna, Austria; including polychoric correlations from the “psych” package [version 2.3.9]) [18,19] and STATA (version 16; StataCorp; 4905 Lakeway Drive, College Station, Texas 77845). Categorical variables were reported as frequencies and proportions, tested for differences using the chi-squared or Fisher exact tests, and for trends using the Cochran-Armitage test. Continuous variables were reported as medians (interquartile range [IQR]), tested for differences using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and for trends using the Spearman's rank test.

Polychoric correlation coefficients [20] for the four cardiometabolic drivers (ABCD, DBCD, HBCD, and LBCD) were calculated as a measure of the inter-relationships among paired cardiometabolic drivers and then compared across the three ADI groups, race, and sex. The polychoric correlation is a measure of association between two ordinal variables such as a staged CMBCD driver vs. another staged CMBCD driver. Similar to Pearson's and Spearman's correlation which measure the association of continuous variables, a positive polychoric correlation coefficient indicates a positive relationship, a negative polychoric correlation coefficient indicates a negative relationship, and 0 indicates no relationship between two variables. For example, if two CMBCD drivers (e.g., ABCD and DBCD) had a positive polychoric correlation coefficient, patients with a higher ABCD stage would have a higher DBCD stage, while patients with a lower ABCD stage would have a lower DBCD stage. Polychoric correlation coefficients range from −1 to 1, where an absolute value < 0.2 indicates a very weak association, 0.2–0.4 indicates a weak association, 0.4–0.6 indicates a moderate association, 0.6–0.8 indicates a strong association, and >0.8 indicates a very strong association.

A mean correlation coefficient to represent a simpler, overall measure of inter-relationships was calculated by averaging the polychoric correlation coefficients. Then, a sampling method was used to test whether these averaged correlation coefficients were significantly different across the three ADI groups. Specifically, each ADI group was randomly sampled to generate a new set of averaged polychoric correlation coefficients. This process was repeated a pre-specified 1000 times and then compared to determine whether the averaged correlation coefficients were significantly different (using Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test) and if there was a trend across the three ADI groups (using Spearman's rank test).

5 Results

The study cohort consisted of 1045 patients, of whom 963 (92.2 %) had geocodable addresses with an associated ADI ranking. Among the 963 patients, median (IQR) age was 63.8 [49.7–72.5] years and 624 (65.1 %) were female. Patients were mostly congregated in the lower ADI group (718 [74.6 %]), compared with 181 (18.8 %) in the middle ADI group and 64 (6.7 %) in the higher ADI group. Across ADI clusters, those in the middle and high ADI groups were more likely to be Black or Hispanic, to have higher rates of traditional cardiovascular risk factors such as obesity and T2D, and to have higher body mass index (BMI) and hemoglobin A1c (A1C) values, compared to patients in the low ADI group. Initial presentation of patients was more frequently CMBCD-related among patients in the middle and high ADI groups, compared to patients in the low ADI group. Calcium channel blocker use was more frequent among patients in the middle and high ADI groups, compared to patients in the low ADI group. Diuretic use was substantially more frequent in the middle ADI group. There were no significant differences in the other medical therapies across the three ADI groups. Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1.Table 1 Baseline characteristics stratified by area deprivation index.a

Table 1Characteristic	Low ADI Group	Middle ADI Group	High ADI Group	P-value for difference	P-value for trend	
n	718	181	64			
Demographics	
 Age (median [IQR]), y	64.2 (49.4–73.0)	61.9 (50.0–70.4)	65.4 (54.5–72.5)	0.252	0.381	
 Female sex	456 (63.9)	122 (67.4)	46 (71.9)	0.334		
 Race				<0.001		
 White	445 (62.0)	60 (33.2)	20 (31.3)			
 Black	44 (6.1)	35 (19.3)	18 (28.1)			
 Hispanic	51 (7.1)	35 (19.3)	7 (10.9)			
 Asian	20 (2.8)	3 (1.7)	1 (1.6)			
 Other or unknown	157 (21.9)	47 (26.0)	18 (28.1)			
Insurance category				0.196		
 Commercial	234 (33.5)	65 (36.3)	16 (25.4)			
 Public (Medicare or Medicaid)	356 (50.9)	95 (53.1)	37 (58.7)			
 Other	109 (15.6)	19 (10.6)	10 (15.9)			
Cardiovascular disease	86 (12.0)	32 (17.7)	6 (9.4)	0.085	0.494	
 Coronary artery disease	41 (5.7)	18 (9.9)	3 (4.7)	0.098	0.363	
 Heart failure	36 (5.0)	12 (6.6)	3 (4.7)	0.669	0.691	
 Atrial fibrillation	35 (4.9)	12 (6.6)	1 (1.6)	0.268	0.723	
 Cerebrovascular disease	46 (6.4)	10 (5.5)	3 (4.7)	0.802	0.506	
 Peripheral artery disease	18 (2.5)	9 (5.0)	3 (4.7)	0.176	0.092	
Risk factors						
 Overweight	229 (32.6)	63 (35.4)	17 (26.6)	0.431	0.713	
 Obesity	186 (26.5)	77 (43.3)	27 (42.2)	<0.001	<0.001	
 Prediabetes	175 (24.4)	45 (24.9)	12 (18.8)	0.580	0.489	
 Type 2 diabetes	159 (28.4)	63 (41.2)	23 (43.4)	0.002	<0.001	
 Prehypertension	60 (8.4)	13 (7.2)	4 (6.3)	0.758	0.457	
 Hypertension	515 (71.7)	143 (79.0)	49 (76.6)	0.118	0.082	
 Abnormal lipoproteins	147 (20.5)	47 (25.6)	9 (14.1)	0.098	0.985	
 Dyslipidemia	217 (57.6)	70 (58.3)	27 (75)	0.126	0.113	
BMI (median [IQR])	26.1 (22.8–30.2)	29.0 (25.8–35.0)	28.0 (24.1–33.4)	<0.001	<0.001	
Systolic blood pressure (median [IQR]), mmHg	131 (119–148)	134 (121–149)	134 (120.5–148.5)	0.422	0.251	
Diastolic blood pressure (median [IQR]), mmHg	78 (72–84)	80 (74–85.5)	77 (71–83.5)	0.118	0.306	
Laboratory values (median [IQR])						
 Hemoglobin
A1c, %	5.8 (5.4–6.5)	6.2 (5.7–6.9)	5.9 (5.4–7.4)	<0.001	<0.001	
 Triglycerides, mg/dL	118 (82–166)	116 (82–178)	108.5 (75–163)	0.741	0.702	
 HDL cholesterol, mg/dL	56 (45–70)	51 (42–64)	52.3 (46.5–63.5)	0.144	0.055	
 LDL cholesterol, mg/dL	96 (75–122)	95 (70–122)	92 (75–132)	0.955	0.928	
 eGFR,
mL/min/1.73 m2	90.3 (27.1)	87.0 (27.6)	88.9 (27.2)	0.748	0.457	
Medical therapy						
 Metformin	69 (9.6)	21 (11.6)	9 (14.1)	0.431	0.195	
 GLP-1 RA	15 (2.1)	6 (3.3)	1 (1.6)	0.567	0.732	
 DPP4i	12 (1.7)	4 (2.2)	1 (1.6)	0.827	0.879	
 SGLT2i	15 (2.1)	6 (3.3)	4 (6.3)	0.086	0.095	
 Insulin	34 (4.7 %)	8 (4.4)	2 (3.1)	0.835	0.581	
 Sulfonylurea	7 (1.0 %)	4 (2.2 %)	1 (1.6 %)	0.397	0.292	
 ACE inhibitor/ARB	90 (12.5)	33 (18.2)	10 (15.6)	0.127	0.104	
 β-blocker	77 (10.7)	23 (12.7)	5 (7.8)	0.533	0.904	
 Calcium channel blocker	48 (6.7)	24 (13.3)	6 (9.4)	0.014	0.029	
 Diuretic	59 (8.2)	27 (14.9)	5 (7.8)	0.026	0.147	
 Statin	135 (18.8)	34 (18.8)	14 (21.9)	0.832	0.649	
a Data are presented as n (%) or median (IQR). Statistically significant differences or trends are indicated in bold. Abbreviations: ACE, angiotensin-converting enzyme; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; BMI, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared); CMBCD, cardiometabolic-based chronic disease; DPP4i, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; GLP-1 RA, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; IQR, interquartile range; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; SGLT2i, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors.

5.1 Cardiometabolic driver stages, stratified by area deprivation index

Classification of patients according to the CMBCD model showed weak but statistically significant trend associations between ADI groups and CMBCD drivers (Table 2). Specifically, higher ADI (higher neighborhood disadvantage) was significantly associated with higher ABCD (Spearman's ρ = 0.142, P < 0.001), DBCD (Spearman's ρ = 0.101, P = 0.005), and HBCD (Spearman's ρ = 0.077, P = 0.017) stages, but this association was null for LBCD (Spearman's ρ = 0.037, P = 0.372).Table 2 Classification of patients according to the cardiometabolic-based chronic disease model stratified by area deprivation index.a

Table 2	Low ADI Group	Middle ADI Group	High ADI Group	P-value for difference	P-value for trend	
n	718	181	64			
ABCD				<0.001	<0.001	
Stage 0/stage 1a	287 (40.9)	38 (21.3)	20 (31.2)		<0.001	
Stage 2	13 (1.9)	5 (2.8)	2 (3.1)		0.340	
Stage 3	2 (0.3)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)		0.441	
Stage 4	400 (57.0)	135 (75.8)	42 (65.6)		<0.001	
DBCD				0.03	0.005	
Stage 0	111 (19.9)	13 (8.5)	5 (9.4)		<0.001	
Stage 1	114 (20.4)	32 (20.9)	13 (24.5)		0.537	
Stage 2	5 (0.9)	1 (0.7)	1 (1.9)		0.691	
Stage 3	6 (1.1)	4 (2.6)	0 (0.0)		0.745	
Stage 4	323 (57.8)	103 (67.3)	34 (64.2)		0.061	
HBCD				0.007	0.017	
Stage 0	88 (12.3)	6 (3.3)	2 (3.1)		<0.001	
Stage 1	55 (7.7)	19 (10.5)	9 (14.1)		0.044	
Stage 2	51 (7.1)	12 (6.6)	3 (4.7)		0.494	
Stage 3	388 (54.0)	101 (55.8)	36 (56.2)		0.620	
Stage 4	136 (18.9)	43 (23.8)	14 (21.9)		0.218	
LBCD				0.817	0.372	
Stage 0	2 (0.5)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)		0.399	
Stage 1	11 (2.9)	3 (2.5)	0 (0.0)		0.360	
Stage 2	137 (36.3)	41 (34.2)	9 (25.0)		0.209	
Stage 3	172 (45.6)	58 (48.3)	21 (58.3)		0.169	
Stage 4	55 (14.6)	18 (15.0)	6 (16.7)		0.756	
a Data are presented as n (%). Percentages pertain to the number of patients at a specified stage for the respective driver-ADI group. Statistically significant differences or trends are indicated in bold. Chi-squared test or Fisher exact test were used to test the differences of each CMBCD driver among the three ADI groups (p-value for difference), Spearman's rank test was used to test the trend of each CMBCD driver across the three ADI groups (p-value for trend), and Cochran-Armitage test was used to test each stage of each CMBCD driver across the three ADI groups (p-value for trend). ABCD stage 0 and stage 1 are combined since, at this time, there is no clear parameter to differentiate “normal” patients from patients with “risk.” Abbreviations: ABCD - adiposity-based chronic disease; DBCD - dysglycemia-based chronic disease; HBCD - hypertension-based chronic disease; LBCD - lipid-based chronic disease.

Classification of patients according to the CMBCD model also showed statistically significant differences in stage distribution across ADI groups for ABCD (P < 0.001), DBCD (P = 0.03), and HBCD (P = 0.007) drivers (Table 2). In addition to these differences, there were also significant trends in stage progression for ABCD, DBCD, and HBCD, but not LBCD. Specifically, among patients with ABCD: 287 (40.9 %) were stages 0/1 in the lowest ADI group, compared with 38 (21.3 %) in the middle group, and 20 (31.2 %) in the highest group (P for trend <0.001); 400 (57.0 %) patients were stage 4 in the lowest ADI group, compared with 135 (75.8 %) in the middle group and 42 (65.6 %) in the highest group (P for trend <0.001). Similarly, among patients with DBCD: 111 (19.9 %) were stage 0 in the lowest ADI group, compared to 13 (8.5 %) in the middle group and 5 (9.4 %) in the highest group (P for trend <0.001). Also similarly, among patients with HBCD: 88 (12.3 %) were stage 0 in the lowest ADI group, compared to 6 (3.3 %) in the middle group and 2 (3.1 %) in the highest group (P for trend <0.001); 55 (7.7 %) were stage 1 in the lowest ADI group, compared with 19 (10.5 %) in the middle group and 9 (14.1 %) in the highest group (P for trend 0.044).

5.2 Cross-correlations among cardiometabolic driver stages, stratified by area deprivation index

A series of cross-correlations was performed to quantitate the inter-relationships among paired cardiometabolic drivers and ADI groups (Table 3; Fig. 1). The correlation between ABCD and DBCD was stronger in the lowest vs. highest ADI group (0.61 vs. 0.32, respectively; P = 0.012). In other words, the correlation between higher stages of ABCD with higher stages of DBCD and lower stages of ABCD with lower stages of DBCD was stronger in the lowest ADI group. The correlation between ABCD and HBCD was stronger in the lowest vs. middle group (0.48 vs. 0.33, respectively; P = 0.037) and it was also stronger in the lowest vs. highest group (0.48 vs. 0.10, respectively; P = 0.002). The correlation between DBCD and HBCD was also stronger in the lowest group vs. middle group (0.52 vs. 0.34, respectively; P = 0.017). However, contrary to the above pattern, the correlation between DBCD and HBCD was weaker in the middle vs. highest group (0.34 and 0.61, respectively; P = 0.031). No significant correlations were observed with paired cross-correlations involving LBCD.Table 3 Significant comparisons of polychoric correlations of cardiometabolic drivers stratified by area deprivation index.a

Table 3CMBCD driver combination	Statistically significant correlations among driver combinations according to ADI group	P-value for difference	
Low ADI Group	Middle ADI Group	High ADI Group	
ABCD-DBCD	0.61		0.32	0.012	
ABCD-HBCD	0.48	0.33		0.037	
ABCD-HBCD	0.48		0.10	0.002	
DBCD-HBCD	0.52	0.34		0.017	
DBCD-HBCD		0.34	0.61	0.031	
a Statistically significant polychoric correlations are depicted in Fig. 1. Statistically significant p-values are indicated in bold. Abbreviations: ABCD - adiposity-based chronic disease; DBCD - dysglycemia-based chronic disease; HBCD - hypertension-based chronic disease.

Fig. 1 Polychoric cross-correlations among paired cardiometabolic drivers stratified by area deprivation index group.

Pairwise CMBCD driver polychoric correlations stratified by ADI group are shown in each square. Pairwise polychoric correlations that are significantly different to their counterpart in another ADI group are encircled, with a curved line connecting them and a p-value midway at the flexion of the curve. See text for explanation of polychoric correlations. The average of pairwise polychoric correlations for each ADI group are depicted in Fig. 2. Abbreviations: ADI - area deprivation index; ABCD - adiposity-based chronic disease; DBCD - dysglycemia-based chronic disease; HBCD - hypertension-based chronic disease; LBCD - lipid-based chronic disease.

Fig. 1

Averaged correlation coefficients were only calculated among cardiometabolic drivers harboring significant differences in pairwise cross-correlations (ABCD, DBCD, and HBCD, but not LBCD) by ADI group. Averaged correlation coefficients were median [IQR]: 0.54 [0.52, 0.57] in the lowest ADI group; median [IQR]: 0.39 [0.34, 0.45] in the middle ADI group; and median [IQR]: 0.34 [0.27, 0.44] in the highest ADI group. Patients in the lowest ADI group had significantly stronger averaged correlation compared with the middle and highest ADI groups (P < 0.001), with the effect sizes being 0.15 and 0.20, respectively, and the middle ADI group had significantly stronger averaged correlation than the highest ADI group (P < 0.001), with the effect size being 0.05 (P for trend <0.001) (Central illustration and Fig. 2).Fig. 2 Average cardiometabolic driver correlation stratified by area deprivation index.

Average pairwise polychoric cardiometabolic driver correlation stratified by ADI group. ABCD, DBCD, and HBCD were included. Pairwise correlations including LBCD were excluded due to lack of significant correlations; 1′s were also excluded since they only depict the complete correlation of a driver with itself (e.g., ABCD with ABCD). Average cardiometabolic driver correlation coefficient for the Low, Middle, and High ADI groups were 0.54, 0.39, and 0.34, respectively (p for trend <0.001). Effect sizes for the low-middle, low-high, and middle-high ADI group comparisons were 0.15, 0.20, and 0.05, respectively. Abbreviations: ADI - area deprivation index.

Fig. 2

These differences could partly be related to demographic differences in cardiometabolic driver correlations, such as sex and race/ethnicity. In terms of sex, averaged correlation coefficients were median [IQR]: 0.54 [0.52, 0.56) in females and 0.32 [0.27, 0.37] in males (P < 0.001) (Supplementary Fig. 1). In terms of race/ethnicity, averaged correlation coefficients were median [IQR]: 0.50 [0.48, 0.52) in Whites and median [IQR]: 0.42 [0.38, 0.46] in Blacks or African Americans (P < 0.001) (Supplementary Fig. 2).

6 Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to explore the relationships among cardiometabolic drivers stratified by SDOH using the CMBCD model. Patients were classified by CMBCD driver and stage at presentation to a preventive cardiology center, and then stratified by neighborhood-level disadvantage using the ADI metric. Our findings clearly affirm established results that the intermediate and high neighborhood disadvantage groups are associated with later stages of ABCD and DBCD on presentation than the low neighborhood disadvantage group. However, we also describe a new finding that the magnitude of inter-correlations among ABCD, DBCD, and HBCD drivers are inversely related to neighborhood disadvantage. In other words, adiposity, dysglycemia, and hypertension are not as related to each other in higher disadvantage populations as they are in lower disadvantage populations.

Stage 0 ABCD, DBCD, and HBCD were more frequent in the low neighborhood disadvantage group in comparison with the intermediate and the high disadvantage groups. Patients in the high and intermediate neighborhood disadvantage groups also had a greater probability than patients in the low disadvantage group of being in more advanced stages for ABCD, DBCD, and HBCD at presentation. Consistent with this, later stages such as obesity and T2D were significantly more frequent in the intermediate and high neighborhood disadvantage groups than in the low disadvantage group. Also, BMI and A1C were greater in the intermediate and high disadvantage groups, compared with the low disadvantage group. This is in agreement with previous research showing that the prevalence of cardiometabolic drivers is higher in populations with higher disadvantage [21]. Specifically, it has been well established that individual and neighborhood-level SDOH related to reduced access to healthy foods, reduced access to safe walking spaces, and increased exposure to violence and crime, contribute to higher rates of cardiovascular risk factors and CVD [22]. These findings underscore the need to improve health promotion strategies, CVD screening campaigns, and access to preventive programs in underserved communities [23].

Although CMBCD driver development is a complex process with many biological and non-biological factors coexisting and clustering, the dominant nature of adiposity as an impelling driver for dysglycemia, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and CVD has been demonstrated in many epidemiological and mechanistic studies [[5], [6], [7],24,25]. Moreover, dysglycemia, with or without abnormal adiposity, is a significant impelling driver for hypertension, dyslipidemia, and CVD [8,9,[25], [26], [27], [28]]. Our novel findings that these CMBCD drivers harbor less intense inter-relationships with higher disadvantage suggest the presence of hidden variables. In fact, these hidden variables may be part of the “biology of adversity.” [22].

The biology of adversity refers to the biological effects of adverse SDOH. Social determinants of health can act as long-term psychosocial or environmental stressors, which have the capacity to alter normal physiology. The main mechanisms by which the biology of adversity is known to work are through sympathetic nervous system and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activation, immune system alteration, inflammation related to glucocorticoid resistance and certain inflammatory cytokines, and epigenetic regulation [29]. In FAMILIA trial participants, the presence of subclinical atherosclerosis was observed to be higher in socioeconomically vulnerable Black adults of non-Hispanic origin, compared to those of Hispanic origin, across all Framingham cardiovascular risk score categories [30]. It was suggested that nontraditional or hidden risk factors could potentially exert this effect through recognizable epigenetic trajectories [31].

Less intense correlations among cardiometabolic drivers could indirectly suggest a higher susceptibility to developing T2D or hypertension, even in the absence of abnormal adiposity [32]. In our study population, higher polychoric correlations were observed in the lower neighborhood-level disadvantage group and lower polychoric correlations were observed in the intermediate and high neighborhood-level disadvantage groups. This suggests that dysglycemia and hypertension are more dependent on abnormal adiposity levels with lower disadvantage, whereas development of dysglycemia and hypertension have a higher degree of independence from abnormal adiposity with intermediate and high disadvantage. Importantly, less intense correlations among cardiometabolic drivers have been associated with worse outcomes in previous research [32]. For example, both T2D [33] and hypertension [34,35] in patients with normal weight have been associated with increased CVD and mortality than in their obese counterparts. In another study with a larger sample size and optimal control for smoking and preexisting chronic conditions, a direct linear relationship was observed between BMI and mortality among those who had never smoked and a J-shaped relationship among those who smoked, as well as all participants [36]. Even if this relationship is mediated by tobacco consumption, these findings insinuate a high-risk population that needs further investigation.

Indeed, our results could partially be confounded by racial/ethnic differences. Racial/ethnic differences can impact adiposity, dysglycemia, and hypertension cross-correlations. The lower correlation, or higher discordance, between adiposity and dysglycemia, has been previously described in Black subjects that have developed T2D at lower BMI values than White subjects [37]. In another study, including 4,906,238 individuals, racial/ethnic minorities reached a given prevalence of T2D at a much lower BMI than whites, suggesting that factors other than BMI may play more important roles in the risk of T2D among racial/ethnic minorities [38]. Moreover, ethnic differences in the crude prevalence of T2D, even in those characterized as normal weight by BMI, has been reported [39]. Correlations between adiposity and hypertension have also been described to be modulated by race/ethnicity. In a study among 4,060,585 adults with overweight or obesity, hypertension prevalence rates were significantly greater for Blacks and other races/ethnicities than for Whites even in similar weight categories and neighborhood-level disadvantage categories, suggesting that other factors might be driving racial/ethnic disparities [40]. In another study comparing cardiometabolic risk factors, larger proportional increases in risk factor prevalence with increasing BMI were observed in Whites, while higher prevalence rates of cardiometabolic risk factors at nearly all levels of BMI were observed in African Americans, suggesting that additional factors contribute to the burden of CVD risk in African Americans [41]. Furthermore, another study showed that compared with whites, racial ethnic minority groups (Chinese Americans, African Americans, Hispanics, and South Asians) had a statistically significant higher prevalence of metabolic abnormality but normal weight, which was not explained by demographic, behavioral, or ectopic fat measures [42].

A factor that might mediate differences seen between adiposity and dysglycemia with hypertension is sodium consumption. Individuals with higher disadvantage are known to consume higher amounts of sodium [43], and African Americans are disproportionately represented in disadvantaged communities. This mechanism for hypertension, which is independent from the presence of adiposity and dysglycemia, could partially explain the weaker correlation between adiposity and hypertension in the intermediate and high disadvantage groups and between dysglycemia and hypertension in the intermediate group, compared to the low disadvantage group.

Sex differences can also impact adiposity, dysglycemia, and hypertension interactions. Whereas men tend to be diagnosed with T2D at a lower BMI than women, associations between abnormal adiposity indices including BMI and T2D risk are generally stronger in women than in men [[44], [45], [46]]. Similarly, the effect of abnormal adiposity on the incidence of hypertension appears stronger in women than in men [47,48].

Our study has three particular strengths. First, the detailed staging system of the CMBCD model facilitated characterization of metabolic status, assigned specific driver-stage coordinates for patient presentations and SDOH, and therefore enabled more precise cross-correlations. Second, linking patients to neighborhoods allowed the use of the ADI as a comprehensive measure of SDOH in terms of neighborhood disadvantage. Third, the polychoric correlation made possible the performance of cross-correlations among staged cardiometabolic drivers, allowing us to fine-tune the detection of these distinct correlation patterns and associate them with different ADI tiers.

This study also has three particular limitations. First, there was disproportionate clustering of patients in the low neighborhood disadvantage group, with a reduced number of patients in the intermediate and high disadvantage groups. This is related to the referral pattern for our Center, which limits its general applicability, and therefore warrants further study in other settings that include a more diverse population. Second, there were missing data mainly pertaining to LBCD, but also DBCD, limiting the ability to accurately classify these patients into their respective stages. One possible impact of the missing data is that it would reduce the statistical power to detect potentially significant findings, if the missingness is unbiased. However, this should be formally addressed by replicating this study using diverse databases with more complete data regarding LBCD in the future. Third, since most of the patients lived in New York City and the study population was obtained from a preventive cardiology center, the findings may not be generalizable to other areas in the U.S. or globally. Therefore, subsequent studies should be conducted in different geographic locations and in different clinical or population contexts to validate our results.

7 Conclusions

In conclusion, our results suggest that greater disadvantage in life impacts how cardiometabolic drivers inter-correlate with each other, possibly due to the biology of adversity. The relevance of this finding is that it unmasks possibly greater susceptibilities for dysglycemia and hypertension development in patients with higher disadvantage in the absence of or at lower levels of abnormal adiposity, which is its habitual driving force. These results are exploratory and hypothesis-generating. Future research should specifically study whether dysglycemia and hypertension increase at lower levels of abnormal adiposity in the setting of disadvantage. Research and education will need to merge SDOH, including neighborhood-level disadvantage, with biological risk factors instead of considering each alone with the former often given short shrift.

Clinical perspectives

Competencies

Optimal cardiometabolic risk assessment requires determination of traditional biological drivers and neighborhood-level disadvantage.

Translational outlook

Future research studies should evaluate whether incorporating biological risk factors with neighborhood-level disadvantage improves the performance of risk scores. Future research should also evaluate whether high disadvantage lean individuals are at greater risk for dysglycemia and hypertension than low disadvantage lean individuals.

Funding

Dr. Hernandez Sevillano is recipient of the 10.13039/100008052 Alfonso Martin Escudero Foundation grant (Madrid, Spain).

Central Illustration. High Neighborhood Disadvantage and Cardiometabolic Drivers.

Three different patterns of relationships among cardiometabolic drivers (adiposity, dysglycemia, and hypertension) according to neighborhood disadvantage are observed in patients in a preventive cardiology center: pattern 1 (green) - low neighborhood disadvantage associated with strong correlation among cardiometabolic drivers; pattern 2 (yellow) - intermediate neighborhood disadvantage associated with moderate correlation among cardiometabolic drivers; and pattern 3 (red) - high neighborhood disadvantage associated with weak correlation among cardiometabolic drivers.

Image 3

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Joel Hernandez Sevillano: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Software, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Masih A. Babagoli: Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Conceptualization. Yitong Chen: Visualization, Software, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation. Shelley H. Liu: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision. Pranav Mellacheruvu: Writing – review & editing. Janet Johnson: Methodology. Borja Ibanez: Writing – review & editing. Oscar Lorenzo: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Conceptualization. Jeffrey I. Mechanick: Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.

Declaration of competing interest

Dr. Mechanick reports receiving honoraria from Abbott Nutrition for lectures and serves on the Advisory Boards for Abbott Nutrition, Aveta.Life, and Twin Health.

JHS, MAB, YC, SL, PM, JJ, BI, and OL report having no disclosures.

Appendix A Supplementary data

The following is the Supplementary data to this article.Multimedia component 1

Multimedia component 1

☆ Short tweet: In a study including >900 patients from a preventive cardiology center, interactions among the various stages of adiposity, dysglycemia, and hypertension are weaker with increasing neighborhood disadvantage. #SDOH, #cvMetabolic

Appendix A Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcrp.2024.200322.
==== Refs
References

1 Kind A.J.H. Jencks S. Brock J. Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and 30-day rehospitalization Ann. Intern. Med. 161 2014 765 25437404
2 Singh G.K. Lin C.-C.C. Area deprivation and inequalities in health and health care outcomes Ann. Intern. Med. 171 2019 131 31261382
3 Angell S.Y. McConnell M.V. Anderson C.A.M. The American heart association 2030 impact goal: a presidential advisory from the American heart association Circulation 141 2020 E120 E138 31992057
4 Mechanick J.I. Farkouh M.E. Newman J.D. Garvey W.T. Cardiometabolic-based chronic disease, adiposity and dysglycemia drivers J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 75 2020 525 538 32029136
5 Klein S. Gastaldelli A. Yki-Järvinen H. Scherer P.E. Why does obesity cause diabetes? Cell Metabol. 34 2022 11 20
6 Hall J.E. do Carmo J.M. da Silva A.A. Wang Z. Hall M.E. Obesity, kidney dysfunction and hypertension: mechanistic links Nat. Rev. Nephrol. 15 2019 367 385 31015582
7 Klop B. Elte J.W.F. Cabezas M.C. Dyslipidemia in obesity: mechanisms and potential targets Nutrients 5 2013 1218 1240 23584084
8 Sun D. Zhou T. Heianza Y. Type 2 diabetes and hypertension: a study on bidirectional causality Circ. Res. 124 2019 930 937 30646822
9 Howard B.V. Insulin resistance and lipid metabolism Am. J. Cardiol. 84 1999 28 32
10 Mechanick J.I. Farkouh M.E. Newman J.D. Garvey W.T. Cardiometabolic-based chronic disease, addressing knowledge and clinical practice gaps: JACC state-of-the-art review J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 75 2020 539 555 32029137
11 Nieto‐Martínez R. González‐Rivas J.P. Mechanick J.I. Cardiometabolic risk: new chronic care models J. Parenter. Enteral Nutr. 45 2021
12 Akwo E.A. Kabagambe E.K. Harrell F.E. Neighborhood Deprivation Predicts Heart Failure Risk in a Low-Income Population of Blacks and Whites in the Southeastern United States vol. 11 2018 Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes e004052
13 US Census Bureau 2020 American Community Survey https://www.census.gov/history/www/programs/demographic/american_community_survey.html
14 Singh G.K. Lin C.-C.C. Area deprivation and inequalities in health and health care outcomes Ann. Intern. Med. 171 2019 131 31261382
15 Berman A.N. Biery D.W. Ginder C. Association of socioeconomic disadvantage with long-term mortality after myocardial infarction: the mass general brigham YOUNG-MI registry JAMA Cardiol 6 2021 880 888 34009238
16 Roux A.V.D. Merkin S.S. Arnett D. Neighborhood of residence and incidence of coronary heart disease N. Engl. J. Med. 345 2001 99 106 11450679
17 Kind A.J.H. Buckingham W.R. Making neighborhood-disadvantage metrics accessible — the neighborhood atlas N. Engl. J. Med. 378 2018 2456 2458 29949490
18 Revelle William Psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research 2023 Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois R package version 2.3.9 https://CRANR-project.org/package=psych
19 Stephanie Glen. Statistics How To: Polychoric Correlation. https://www.statisticshowto.com/polychoric-correlation/Accessed on July 20, 2024.
20 Roscino A. Pollice A. A generalization of the polychoric correlation coefficient Data Analysis, Classification and the Forward Search 2006 Springer Berlin Heidelberg Berlin, Heidelberg 135 142
21 Odutayo A. Gill P. Shepherd S. Income disparities in absolute cardiovascular risk and cardiovascular risk factors in the United States, 1999-2014 JAMA Cardiol 2 2017 782 790 28593301
22 Powell-Wiley T.M. Baumer Y. Baah F.O. Social determinants of cardiovascular disease Circ. Res. 130 2022 782 799 35239404
23 Turco J.V. Inal-Veith A. Fuster V. Cardiovascular health promotion: an issue that can No longer wait J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 72 2018 908 913 30115230
24 Miao Z. Alvarez M. Ko A. The causal effect of obesity on prediabetes and insulin resistance reveals the important role of adipose tissue in insulin resistance PLoS Genet. 16 2020 e1009018
25 The Look AHEAD Research Group Cardiovascular effects of intensive lifestyle intervention in type 2 diabetes N. Engl. J. Med. 369 2013 145 154 23796131
26 Nakamura M. Yamazaki O. Shirai A. Preserved Na/HCO3 cotransporter sensitivity to insulin may promote hypertension in metabolic syndrome Kidney Int. 87 2015 535 542 25354240
27 Horita S. Seki G. Yamada H. Suzuki M. Koike K. Fujita T. Insulin resistance, obesity, hypertension, and renal sodium transport Int. J. Hypertens. 2011 2011
28 Rossello X. Raposeiras-Roubin S. Oliva B. Glycated hemoglobin and subclinical atherosclerosis in people without diabetes J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 77 2021 2777 2791 34082907
29 Baumer Y. Pita M.A. Baez A.S. By what molecular mechanisms do social determinants impact cardiometabolic risk? Clin. Sci. 137 2023 469 494
30 Iglesies-Grau J. Fernandez-Jimenez R. Diaz-Munoz R. Subclinical atherosclerosis in young, socioeconomically vulnerable hispanic and non-hispanic Black adults J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 80 2022 219 229 35835495
31 Ammous F. Zhao W. Lin L. Epigenetics of single-site and multi-site atherosclerosis in african Americans from the genetic epidemiology network of arteriopathy (GENOA) Clin. Epigenet. 14 2022
32 Salvatore T. Galiero R. Caturano A. Current knowledge on the pathophysiology of lean/normal-weight type 2 diabetes Int. J. Mol. Sci. 24 2022 658 36614099
33 Doehner W. Erdmann E. Cairns R. Inverse relation of body weight and weight change with mortality and morbidity in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular co-morbidity: an analysis of the PROactive study population Int. J. Cardiol. 162 2012 20 26 22037349
34 Bai K. Chen X. Shi Z. Hypertension modifies the associations of body mass index and waist circumference with all-cause mortality among older Chinese: a retrospective cohort study BMC Geriatr. 22 2022
35 Colangelo L.A. Vu T.H.T. Szklo M. Burke G.L. Sibley C. Liu K. Is the association of hypertension with cardiovascular events stronger among the lean and normal weight than among the overweight and obese?: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis Hypertension 66 2015 286 293 26077561
36 Tobias D.K. Pan A. Jackson C.L. Body-mass index and mortality among adults with incident type 2 diabetes N. Engl. J. Med. 370 2014 233 244 24428469
37 Chiu M. Austin P.C. Manuel D.G. Shah B.R. Tu J.V. Deriving ethnic-specific BMI cutoff points for assessing diabetes risk Diabetes Care 34 2011 1741 1748 21680722
38 Zhu Y. Sidell M.A. Arterburn D. Racial/ethnic disparities in the prevalence of diabetes and prediabetes by BMI: patient outcomes research to advance learning (PORTAL) multisite cohort of adults in the U.S Diabetes Care 42 2019 2211 2219 31537541
39 Diaz V.A. Mainous A.G. Baker R. Carnemolla M. Majeed A. How does ethnicity affect the association between obesity and diabetes? Diabet. Med. 24 2007 1199 1204 17725630
40 Young D.R. Fischer H. Arterburn D. Associations of overweight/obesity and socioeconomic status with hypertension prevalence across racial and ethnic groups J. Clin. Hypertens. 20 2018 532 540
41 Taylor H.A. Coady S.A. Levy D. Relationships of BMI to cardiovascular risk factors differ by ethnicity Obesity 18 2010 1638 1645 19927137
42 Gujral U.P. Vittinghoff E. Mongraw-Chaffin M. Cardiometabolic abnormalities among normal-weight persons from five racial/ethnic groups in the United States Ann. Intern. Med. 166 2017 628 28384781
43 De Mestral C. Mayén A.L. Petrovic D. Marques-Vidal P. Bochud M. Stringhini S. Socioeconomic determinants of sodium intake in adult populations of high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis Am. J. Publ. Health 107 2017 e1 e12
44 Kautzky-Willer A. Harreiter J. Pacini G. Sex and gender differences in risk, pathophysiology and complications of type 2 diabetes mellitus Endocr. Rev. 37 2016 278 316 27159875
45 Tramunt B. Smati S. Grandgeorge N. Sex differences in metabolic regulation and diabetes susceptibility Diabetologia 63 2020 453 461 31754750
46 Lee D.H. Keum N. Hu F.B. Comparison of the association of predicted fat mass, body mass index, and other obesity indicators with type 2 diabetes risk: two large prospective studies in US men and women Eur. J. Epidemiol. 33 2018 1113 1123 30117031
47 Fujita M. Hata A. Sex and age differences in the effect of obesity on incidence of hypertension in the Japanese population: a large historical cohort study Journal of the American Society of Hypertension 8 2014 64 70 24113321
48 Kawasoe S. Kubozono T. Ojima S. Sex differences in the effects of weight reduction on future blood pressure elevation in a mildly obese middle-aged population Circ Rep 2 2020 385 392 33693259
