Improving women's health through modernization of our bioinformatics infrastructure

Strategies and methods to study female-specific cardiovascular health and disease: a guide for clinical scientists

BACKGROUND

In 2001, the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) report, "Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter?" advocated for better understanding of the differences in human diseases between the sexes, with translation of these differences into clinical practice. Sex differences are well documented in the prevalence of cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, the clinical manifestation and incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and the impact of risk factors on outcomes. There are also physiologic and psychosocial factors unique to women that may affect CVD risk, such as issues related to reproduction.

METHODS

The Society for Women's Health Research (SWHR) CV Network compiled an inventory of sex-specific strategies and methods for the study of women and CV health and disease across the lifespan. References for methods and strategy details are provided to gather and evaluate this information. Some items comprise robust measures; others are in development.

RESULTS

To address female-specific CV health and disease in population, physiology, and clinical trial research, data should be collected on reproductive history, psychosocial variables, and other factors that disproportionately affect CVD in women. Variables related to reproductive health include the following: age of menarche, menstrual cycle regularity, hormone levels, oral contraceptive use, pregnancy history/complications, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) components, menopause age, and use and type of menopausal hormone therapy. Other factors that differentially affect women's CV risk include diabetes mellitus, autoimmune inflammatory disease, and autonomic vasomotor control. Sex differences in aging as well as psychosocial variables such as depression and stress should also be considered. Women are frequently not included/enrolled in mixed-sex CVD studies; when they are included, information on these variables is generally not collected. These omissions limit the ability to determine the role of sex-specific contributors to CV health and disease. Lack of sex-specific knowledge contributes to the CVD health disparities that women face.

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this review is to encourage investigators to consider ways to increase the usefulness of physiological and psychosocial data obtained from clinical populations, in an effort to improve the understanding of sex differences in clinical CVD research and health-care delivery for women and men.

Representation of women in randomized clinical trials of cardiovascular disease prevention

BACKGROUND

The 2007 American Heart Association guidelines for cardiovascular disease prevention in women drew heavily on results from randomized clinical trials; however, representation of women in trials of cardiovascular disease prevention has not been systematically assessed.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We abstracted 156 randomized clinical trials cited by the 2007 women's prevention guidelines to determine female representation over time and by clinical indication, prevention type, location of trial conduct, and funding source. Both women and men were represented in 135 of 156 (86.5%) trials; 20 trials enrolled only men; 1 enrolled only women. Among all trials, the proportion of women increased significantly over time, from 9% in 1970 to 41% in 2006. Considering only trials that enrolled both women and men, female enrollment was 18% in 1970 and increased to 34% in 2006. Female representation was higher in international versus United States-only trials (32.7% versus 26.7%) and primary versus secondary prevention trials (42.6% versus 26.6%). Female enrollment was comparable in government/foundation-funded versus industry-funded trials (31.9% versus 31.5%). Representation of women was highest among trials in hypertension (44%), diabetes (40%), and stroke (38%) and lowest for heart failure (29%), coronary artery disease (25%), and hyperlipidemia (28%). By contrast, women accounted for 53% of all individuals with hypertension, 50% with diabetes, 51% with heart failure, 49% with hyperlipidemia, and 46% with coronary artery disease. Sex-specific results were discussed in only 31% of primary trial publications.

CONCLUSIONS

Enrollment of women in randomized clinical trials has increased over time but remains low relative to their overall representation in disease populations. Efforts are needed to reach a level of representation that is adequate to ensure evidence-based sex-specific recommendations.

Improving the quality of care for women with cardiovascular disease: report of a DCRI Think Tank, March 8 to 9, 2007

BACKGROUND

Differences in pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of women with cardiovascular disease compared with men has become a major focus during the past decade. Nevertheless, little attention has focused on improving the quality of healthcare in women compared with other areas of cardiovascular medicine.

METHODS

To address this deficit, Duke University Medical Center convened a national Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) Think Tank meeting, including basic science and clinical researchers, payers, legislators, clinical experts, government regulators, and members of the pharmaceutical and device industries. This report provides an overview of the discussions and proposed solutions.

RESULTS

Discussion concentrated on the development of strategies to improve the quality of health care for women with heart disease. Key components to improve quality care include: (1) enhance the quantity and quality of evidence-based medicine to guide care in women through improvements in trial design, enrollment and retention of women subjects, results analysis and reporting, and better incentives to perform research in women; (2) provide incentives to develop better data in women through mandating changes in the drug and device development and approval processes; (3) incorporate specific recommendations for women into guidelines when data are sufficient; and (4) apply proven sex-based differences in risk stratification, diagnostic testing, and drug usage and dosing in clinical care. Examples of possible strategies are included.

CONCLUSION

The above approach represents a necessary, but not sufficient, platform to improve the overall quality of healthcare in women with cardiovascular disease.